Preamble

The House met at half past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BILL PRESENTED

DOG FIGHTING (PENALTIES)

Mr. Harry Greenway, supported by Sir Hugh Rossi, Sir Marcus Fox, Mr. Roy Galley, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Tim Smith and Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth, presented a Bill to amend the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to increase the penalties for offences against animals under section 1(1): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

Christie Hospital, Manchester

Motion made and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Fred Silvester: The outstanding feature of Adjournment debates is that the answers are always written before the questions are heard, but perhaps today will be an exception. Debates on specific hospitals and problems in the Health Service are usually answered the easy way and we all have on our files interesting letters from the predecessors of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, including my right hon and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), which take the straightforward line.
There are three lines of defence in such matters. The first is to quote the global sums spent on the NHS, which are remarkable but not always relevant. The second is to refer to living within our means, about which we have several letters on file. The third is to suggest that Ministers have no power to intervene in regional decisions. The case of ministerial detachment is unsatisfactory because, although Ministers cannot intervene in every local decision, they cannot escape from the casual connection between policies devised at the Elephant and Castle and their effect in the field.
Not everything can be answered by generalities. We have got into the procrastinating habit of assuming that general principles worked out by the Department must be applicable to each local circumstance and if we have to stretch the hospital or chop off its legs to make them fit, we shall do that. Until my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) came to the Ministry, the central problem facing us was not being tackled. General principles do not apply in every case.
Today I want to talk specifically about the Christie hospital. It is no ordinary hospital, but is the largest single cancer-treating hospital in Europe and is linked with one of the leading cancer research institutes. Its origins go back to 1893 when the first of the two elements was founded, and it was brought together on its present site as a combined hospital known as the Christie in 1932. Cancer research has been pioneered there since the mid-1940s when Dr. Edith Paterson, an expert in radiation biology, was at work. The Paterson institute is almost entirely sustained by public subscription and has carried on the work of cancer research in conjunction with the hospital. The hospital undertakes many drugs trials and there is a regular interchange of personnel with centres overseas. For those reasons the Christie is a national asset and an undisputed centre of excellence.
I decided to bring the questions arising from the hospital to the House today because I wanted to summarise what we were able to tell the Prime Minister on her visit last Friday and to ensure that her words found a place on my hon. Friend's agenda and were not forgotten. We were delighted to welcome the Prime Minister and she saw the hospital, which is working well, its several new facilities, enormous dedication and considerable efficiency. The Prime Minister was told of some of the things that I will the House. She told us how important it was for the country to preserve and encourage centres of excellence. I emphasise that my comments are


not a begging letter or a bellyache. To suggest that the Christie is going downhill and depriving people of treatment is a travesty of the truth. It depresses and sickens me when hospitals are used as pawns of political propaganda.
First, as an aside, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a card which is going around which was published by the Labour party in support of its "Save our health service" campaign. The card shows a child's drawing. It says:
My grandad is the fittest person I know. 2 years ago he was very poorly and when he went into Christie's Hospital they cured him.
The card is from a child aged eight called Ruth. That card, which was made in London and made its way to Manchester, has caused great offence to some in the hospital because it implies that the Labour party gives official backing and credence to the proposition that the sort of help available to Ruth's grandad would not be available unless a particular political party was elected. I find that offensive, as do some others.
I do not want to fall into the same trap of making political mileage one way or another about the Christie. We must deal with an important point of principle and fact if we are to get it right. In the past six years, the Christie has had much new building and it treats more people than ever. The Christie has a problem of success, because its success is paid for despite rather than because of the NHS system of resource allocation. In brief, the Christie's excellence continues to attract patients for whom there is no allocation. The Christie copes. It raises huge sums through voluntary effort. The Christie is the most efficient cancer hospital bar none. It has squeezed a quart, even a gallon, into a pint pot. All those qualities—excellence, voluntary effort, efficiency and hard work—are precisely the virtues which the Government seek to promote, but the reward has not followed the endeavour.
The Pat Seed scanner was provided by a fund in honour of the brave lady who fought cancer and gave so much encouragement to others. The fund raised £1 million for the scanner and the building. The Jubilee out-patients suite and the day ward were provided by voluntary subscriptions which raised £1·5 million. The adult leukaemia unit was subscribed by the Leukaemia Research Fund, the Cancer Research Campaign and the Women's Trust Fund at a cost of £800,000. The Pat Seed appeal committee has agreed to provide a developmental linear accelerator at a cost of a further £1·2 million. The Kay Kendall Foundation will provide a new laboratory in experimental haematology costing £900,000 and the Women's Trust Fund is providing £100,000 for the medical oncology department's research laboratories. I am sure that my hon. Friend is a mathematician. If she adds all that up, she will find that during the past six years about £5·6 million has been raised by voluntary effort. Not a penny of that has come from public sources.
The Christie is the most efficient cancer hospital bar none. If one considers the cost comparisons available for hospitals providing a similar service in the United Kingdom and the summary tables one finds, for example, that the cost per in-patient case at the Christie is £678. Those are the 1984–85 figures. The hospital with the nearest total is in the Trent area. Its cost per in-patient case

is £738. The royal Marsden in London has a cost per in-patient case of more than £1,000. The nursing cost per in-patient case in the Christie is £88. The next nearest figure per in-patient case is twice as expensive and the royal Marsden is four times as expensive. Those comparisons may be carried out in the domestic service, too, and in catering and building maintenance. Whichever yardstick one applies, one finds that the Christie is in the most efficient section.
Secondly, I shall dwell briefly on the comparison with the royal Marsden hospitals in the Fulham road and Surrey. I shall try to avoid paranoia in this matter, because I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is not altogether sympathetic about some comparisons between the north and the south. But these comparisons are extraordinary and they cause raised eyebrows, if nothing else. The basic figures which I have already given to my hon. Friend show that the average cost per patient is four times as great at the royal Marsden in London. If one considers the expenditure tables for 1985–86, one finds that the royal Marsden in Surrey gets approximately £10 million a year from public funds for a case load of 5,895. The royal Marsden in London gets another £10 million for a case load of roughly 5,989. The Christie gets approximately £11 million, some of which is earmarked, for a case load of more than 10,000. Similar sums of public money are being spent on double the number of patients.
Whichever way one looks at it, the figures are highly unsatisfactory. The cost per in-patient day at the royal Marsden on medical and surgical equipment is £6·50 and is £1·37 at the Christie. In pharmacy, the figure is £13·95 at the royal Marsden and £8·27 at the Christie. In radiology, it is £2·33 at the royal Marsden and £1·31 at the Christie. The drugs bill at the royal Marsden is £1·5 million. At the Christie it is £900,000. The staffing facilities are much better at the royal Marsden, not only in numbers but also because the royal Marsden appears to have no nursing auxiliaries and many senior nurses, while much work is done at the Christie with nursing auxiliaries.
If there were only one or two discrepancies one would not make much of it, but the fact is that the cumulative evidence of the difference of treatment at the royal Marsden and at the Christie provides continuous aggravation and no one has yet given a satisfactory explanation. We have investigated whether the type of case treated at the two hospitals is different, but apart from a certain amount of highly intensive neck surgery there is little difference between the two provisions.
Thirdly, I said that the Christie gets a quart into a pint pot. It serves a region, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, which has the third highest cancer incidence in the country and a population with many elderly people who are coming up to the age when cancer is likely to develop. But if one considers the figures from 1980–85, one sees that the number of patients is up by 15 per cent. The throughput per bed is up by 28 per cent. The day cases are up by 43 per cent. The number of days that people spend in the hospital is down from 10·1 to 8·5. The hospital is squeezing more and more people through. That is not uncommon, of course, in the Health Service, but the record of the Christie in that respect is superlative. One can continue to do that for so long, but after that the cracks begin to show. The Christie has achieved all that with the cards stacked against it. There has been no major capital expenditure on X-ray by the region since it bought a piece


of ultra-sound machinery in 1979 for £40,000. As a regional specialty, the Christie can bid for traditional funds for development, but little is forthcoming.
The needs are clearly apparent. In the case of radiotherapy, the present complement of treatment machines is six plus a cobalt 60 unit. The calculation of requirements over the next seven years is that nine linear accelerators will be needed. Even if that is achieved, the hospital will have only half the number of machines in relation to population served compared with the national average. In the case of diagnositic radiology, it has relied entirely upon Pat Seed money. There is an urgent need for a second scanner and the movement into nuclear magnetic resonance imaging will impose further requirements on the hospital. None of this has come from regional funds. It is all very well to rely on voluntary funds, and we approve of it, but there has been no matching provision from the regions.
It is not only capital, but running costs. The Christie takes in patients from all over. Five per cent. come from Wales. The cost of that to the hospital is estimated at £300,000 because there is no provision for the transfer of resources from one region to another. No fewer than 16 per cent. of the patients come from outside the north-west area. If one calculates that on the same basis, it costs roughly £1 million. I do not say that that is an accurate figure, but it is not far off. There is also a problem of calculating the number of patients, which is done two years in arrears and which is worth perhaps another £300,000.
This is all done within South Manchester district, which is suffering from similar pressure. In 1984, it is estimated that the district alone had a net inflow of 34,000 patients from other districts and the cost is valued at £27 million. The district wants to help the Christie, but it is under extreme pressure and it cannot sustain the burden which the Christie imposes upon its general finances.
One can see that in the drugs bill. We have been trying to cut the bill by negotiating prices, but that is limited by what the DHSS will permit. I do not argue about that. There are reasons for it, but it means that the hospital has a limited ability to act alone in this respect. In 1980–81, the Christie's drugs bill was £586,000. In 1985–86, it was £1·1 million. My hon. Friend will know that the reason is that, in cancer treatment, the joint use of chemotherapy and surgery as well as the use of chemotherapy alone has developed dramatically. Some of the drugs are very expensive. Indeed, taking account of inflation, the drugs bill is an increase of £350,000 in real terms over that five-year period. We calculate that, of that sum, £100,000 has come from the region and £250,000 has had to be found from the resources of the district. The position is neither tolerable nor reasonable.
Most dramatic has been the effect upon nurses. It is now accepted that the hospital is 50 nurses short of what it needs to maintain the service at this level of patient throughput. The region has just said that it will allow 20 more nurses, but that is for 1987–88 and will not begin until April 1988—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): April 1987.

Mr. Silvester: I am pleased to hear that. My information was that they would arrive in April 1988. We have sent people to examine the nursing problems in the

hospital and the strain is intolerable. Everything that we can do to speed the provision of additional nurses is essential.
Finally, because I wish to give my hon. Friend time to give a sympathetic reply, I refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, the former Minister for Health, who in 1985 set up the review of the RAWP formula. It covers several of the matters that I mentioned, such as cross-boundary costing, the time lag, teaching and research and development. But I was a bit put off by a letter from Victor Paige, the former manager of the Health Service, who said:
The review will not cover sub-regional resource allocation to districts.
Such a limitation would be absurd because some of the most acute problems arise in sub-regional allocation. But I took comfort from the fact that he went on to say:
Information on sub-regional experience…would be welcomed.
Too right it would. Unless we tackle the problem of dealing with centres of excellence such as the Christie within the overall funding of the Health Service, we shall get nowhere. But it will take time. The Department has asked for answers from that study by the end of this year, and it will have to chunter through the system, so it will be some time before anything is done.
May I end by explaining the present needs of the Christie? As I said, these are not moaning complaints but expressions of the urgent needs of people who are doing a fantastic job and meeting demands which are made upon them. They are not going out touting for business. They need 20 nurses immediately, and I shall be glad to hear more about that. They need a revaluaton of the drugs bill, especially the regional contribution. Why does the royal Marsden have a drugs bill twice the size of the drugs bill at the Christie? We also need some matching help on capital expenditure. After all, if the hospital raises £5·6 million and gets nothing but a smile, it is a bit depressing.
If my hon. Friend will make some helpful remarks on those three points this Christmas time, she will have made a good start in helping the Christie hospital.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) on being successful in Mr. Speaker's ballot and on giving us the opportunity to discuss the Christie hospital. He began his remarks with four hints to Ministers: that we should not prepare all our answers before hearing the questions; that we should not quote global sums for health services nationally, which he thought were irrelevant; that we should not blather on about living within our means; and that we should not say that we have no powers to intervene locally. I would dispute all those points, but perhaps not on this occasion. May I offer him one hint: that he listens carefully this morning because my voice will not last until the end of the sitting unless I can speak more or less in a whisper. I apologise to him for that.
My hon. Friend has been a staunch advocate of health services in the region, and, indeed, in the district. Recently, he brought some members of South Manchester health authority to meet Ministers and to share with them his concern about funding. The Christie hospital is run by South Manchester health authority which, in turn, receives


its funding from the regional health authority. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that it is relevant to consider, almost as an end-of-term report, the north-west region from which the Christie draws many of its patients.
During the past month or so, considerable progress has been made. On 1 December, approval was given for a £21·5 million development at Chorley general hospital. On 12 December, approval was given for a £14·7 million development at the royal Lancaster infirmary. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health laid the foundation stone for the £30 million development at Manchester royal infirmary on 12 December, the day when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Christie hospital. In that sense, the north-west region has made considerable progress recently.
It is worth pointing out that, during the years of this Government, considerable change has taken place. In 1978–79, the North-West regional health authority received just under £380 million a year in revenue. This year, it has received £904 million in revenue. In addition, this year, it is receiving about £72 million in capital moneys, which is the second largest allocation in the country, the largest being to the West Midlands regional health authority. My hon. Friend's academic skills will enable him to do the calculation for himself, but he will see that there has been a considerable allocation of extra money to that part of the country—well above the extra money that has been allocated to regions in the London area, which have remained much closer to their targets for much longer.
The results can be seen in the numbers of patients treated and in the number of direct care staff. In December 1978, the north-west region was looking after 512,000 inpatients. Last year, that had risen to 614,000. The number of people attending out-patient clinics had gone up from 3·1 million to 3·6 million, and the number attending as day cases had gone up from 68,000 to 116,000. The number of direct care staff employed by the North-West regional health authority has gone up from just under 40,000 to 48,000. It is worth pointing out that some patients who might once have been treated at the Christie may now be treated in other centres simply because the first class work of cancer researchers has shown that some treatment can be delivered in more ordinary surroundings, and the same standards achieved.
There has been the £72 million provided this year for the north-west region, and 58 major capital schemes, costing over £1 million each, have been completed since 1978. Some 14 schemes are under construction, including the Manchester royal infirmary, and 18 are approved to start. This represents a total investment in hospitals in Manchester and Lancashire of more than £320 million since 1978. Whatever the local Labour party may be claiming, it could not begin to claim that any Labour Government had put that kind of money into any part of the Health Service, north or south, and that is an acknowledged record.
The South Manchester health authority, which manages the Christie hospital, is a teaching district and its hospitals are linked with Manchester university. The main hospitals are the Withington, the Wythenshawe and the Christie, which is the smallest, with 347 beds. The total funding of the health authority in 1982–83, the first year of its establishment as a district health authority—we

cannot go back any further because it did not exist in that form before—was £68,757,000 and in 1985–86 it had gone up to £80 million, which is an improvement in real terms, despite the fact that one of the aims of the regional health authority is to shift money, as far as possible, to match population growth. That growth has tended to be outside Manchester rather than within it. Other districts, such as Bolton, have seen an increase in population and have a reasonable claim on the moneys of the north-west region. Nevertheless, south Manchester has still had a small increase in real terms.
The number of patients treated in south Manchester has gone up from 513,000 in 1982 to 550,000 in 1985. My hon. Friend may call that an irrelevant generality, but it refers to real patients and is worth putting on record.

Mr. Silvester: Does my hon. Friend understand that the regional plan wants the Christie to treat fewer people? It is getting more patients because doctors will not send them somewhere else, but it is not getting the funding for them.

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend will realise that there is the dilemma of the hump, which is that good doctors will not send their patients somewhere else until good facilities are provided somewhere else. At the moment, we spend large sums of capital money while we are not yet able to open the facilities in places such as Bolton. I have no doubt that that is broadly the right way of going about things. It is always good to be able to point out that the number of patients treated is rising and is, I suspect, adequate.
The Christie hospital and Holt Radium Institute, with the separately administered Paterson Laboratories on the same site, serve a large part of the United Kingdom. They serve the north-west region, south Cumbria, which is in the northern region, Cheshire which is in the Mersey region and, as my hon. Friend has said, north Wales. There is an out-patients clinic in Wrexham. As my hon. Friend said, the Christie was founded in 1893 and moved on to the present site in 1932. I understand that it is one of the largest specialist cancer hospitals in Europe, but my hon. Friend has said that it is the largest, and I defer to his local knowledge. I take my hon. Friend's point about matching capital offers from the voluntary sector, but it is worth pointing out that £10·5 million comes from the Health Service, and that is a substantial contribution.
There are some 850 staff, measured in whole-time equivalents, and the number of patients treated, both discharges and deaths, in 1985, at 10,735, was 22 per cent. higher than in 1979, when fewer than 9,000 patients were treated. The waiting list is 327, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we do not mind what the number on the waiting list is as long as waiting lists have the same sort of waiting times as they do at the Christie. It takes the hospital only 12 to 14 days to clear the waiting list, which is highly commendable.
My hon. Friend mentioned recent capital developments, which are both voluntary and NHS-funded, such as the new aseptic suite, which was completed in March 1986 at a total cost of £142,000 and the new radiotherapy linear accelerator, which was also provided in March, at a cost of £450,000 and the adult leukaemia unit, which was completed in October at a cost of £817,000.
My hon. Friend's words give me the opportunity to express our heartfelt thanks and appreciation to all those who have raised such enormous sums of money. The Health Service is, and always has been, a partnership.
Voluntary funding and effort were there long before the Health Service was even thought of. It is good to see it functioning well in a hospital such as Christie, where voluntary funding can be put to such good use. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in giving our warm thanks to all concerned and in encouraging them to continue. He may know that I was involved in a small way in helping to set up the leukaemia research fund activity in south Birmingham when I was a councillor there, and I was involved with it for 10 years. I have always felt that we should tap into people's willing generosity in that way and encourage them to help. It would be a sad day for all of us if voluntary activity disappeared, and we were totally reliant on state funding.
The Christie has one or two activities to which we should draw attention. I was particularly interested to notice that it is treating over 350 cases of cervical cancer a year and is at the heart of the region's preventive effort on this detectable and curable cancer. It is worth noting that, by March 1988, every one of the 19 north-west districts will have a cervical cancer call and recall system. We hope that the clay will come when the death toll from cervical cancer will drop sharply.
My hon. Friend raised a number of other issues. In particular, he went into detail in his comparison with the royal Marsden hospital in London. The consultants at the Christie are arguing that the hospital is underfunded and draw unfavourable comparisons with the major national hospital in London. My hon. Friend said that he felt that the Marsden was several times more expensive in its treatment of patients, and was good enough to provide some detailed examples of that. However, he will know from an answer to his parliamentary question on 26 February this year that the Marsden's costs per patient day are not several times higher but 80 per cent. higher. My predecessor was able to tell my hon. Friend that the cost per in-patient day at Christie was £76 and that for the royal Marsden £138, while the cost per in-patient case at Christie was £657 and that at the royal Marsden £1,181. Those are the figures on which we should rely.
My hon. Friend knows that these matters are under careful consideration, and broadly there are three reasons why the royal Marsden appears to be more expensive than the Christie. The first is that the royal Marsden is the national centre and receive patients from all over the country. Although the description of the work may be similar, at least some of its cases may be more complex, and may prove to be more expensive, wherever they might be treated.
The second reason is that London is more expensive. Neither my hon. Friend, who represents a northern seat, nor I probably like that, but it is a fact, and we are keen to investigate why London costs should be higher and how they can be reduced to more average levels.
The third reason seems to be that, whatever one might say about the royal Marsden, the Christie is highly efficient in its use of resources. At 89 per cent., the average occupancy rate at the Christie is very high. As I have said, the waiting list clears rapidly, the throughput of patients seems to be good, and so on. Two things come out of the comparison. First, whenever we review what is happening in London, we push hard on the question of the royal Marsden's costs and compare them with those of the Christie. We ask the royal Marsden why, if the Christie can

operate at that sort of cost, the royal Marsden cannot. That is not an easy challenge for a good hospital to meet, but it is nevertheless an appropriate challenge. Secondly, as my hon. Friend will know, the north-west region has been investigating the Christie's fears about funding. In other words, these matters are taken seriously and, indeed, it has been looking at the funding of all the regional specialties.
I understand from Sir John Page, the regional health authority chairman, that the regional medical officer, Dr. Stephen Horsley, has been having discussions with the consultants at the Christie and that that should lead to an agreed workload so that the work that can be devolved to districts is so devolved, and the same high standards can be maintained while ensuring that the Christie's special qualities and talents are effectively used for more serious or difficult patients.
It has been mentioned that on Wednesday, even while the review is going on, the region agreed to provide an extra £170,000 in order to fund 20 extra nurses in the year beginning April 1987–88. That means that those nurses can be taken into consideration from April. In the intervening three months advertisements must be placed, applications will be received and interviews will be carried out, if appropriate. The staff involved may have to give notice somewhere else and so the beginning of April is probably just about as close to "at once" as one can get. That would seem to be satisfactory.
The other points raised by my hon. Friend are being taken on hoard in the region's broad review of what is going on. I include in that the Christie's complaint that the number of beds that it has for radiotherapy is well below national guidelines. However, I should point out that the excellent work done at the Christie may help us to revise those national guidelines and to see whether we can provide our cancer patients with a service which is both effective and efficient.
My hon. Friend mentioned charging for patients from other regions and from Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to another regional Member of Parliament on this issue on 28 November 1986, and I should be glad to make a copy of that letter available. He broadly said that we were prepared to look at any system of cross-charging. However, we bear in mind that those patient flows are taken into account in the resource allocation working party programme and have been looked at again recently. We are also extremely wary of setting up yet more bureaucracy, as that may well mean that money is absorbed into administration instead of going into patient services. However, in principle we are prepared to look at any system.
I do not have time to deal with the valuation of the drugs bill or with some of the questions that my hon. Friend posed. But the very fact that those issues have been raised today will no doubt mean that they are taken into account. I am glad to have had the opportunity to join in my hon. Friend's praise for this first-class, outstanding hospital which serves the north-west and local people so very well. With my hon. Friend, I thank those local people who have raised voluntary funds. We are ensuring that the hospital has the right resources, and we are investing more in the north-west region. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to help us in spreading that good news.

Homelessness

Mr. John Fraser: I wish to raise the issue of homelessness this winter. It is particularly relevant to our series of Christmas Adjournment debates, as the rigours of winter are now upon us, as we felt last night, and the exclusion of people from the security of a home and from family ties is particularly poignant at this time of the year. Indeed, the story of Christmas is in part about homelessness, and an expectant mother in Bethlehem who had no roof over her head.
That plight and that lack of shelter will affect thousands of people at the turn of the year. Later today, Shelter will hold a candlelight vigil at St. Martin-in-the-Fields, and will protest and plead for permanent, affordable and decent housing for rent. This morning, I plead for that, and for the flocks of people who do not have roofs over their heads or secure and affordable homes this winter. The number of people has shamefully increased since 1979, just as the number of those unemployed has.
Ten days ago, in a written answer, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment gave us the figures in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). They can be found in column 30 of Hansard for 8 December 1986. In 1979, 57,000 households—I emphasise households—were accepted as being homeless. In 1982, 75,000 households were accepted as homeless, and in 1985, 94,000 households were so accepted. In the first six months of 1986, 51,000 households had been accepted as being homeless and without shelter. Thus the figure is running at a rate of well over 100,000 a year, which is about double the level accepted as homeless in 1979.
Of course, if one includes the number of households that are homeless but are not accepted as being in a vulnerable category, the figure stands at over 200,000 a year. I have laid stress on the term households as an even greater number of people are really affected. The figure for the number of those rendered homeless each year is probably equivalent to at least the entire population of Croydon. Moreover, if one takes the slightly higher figure, it is probably equivalent to the whole population of Bristol being made homeless during the course of 12 months.
Many more people could be added to those statistics. I am talking about single people who may be too desperate or hopeless to figure in the statistics. They may sleep rough or in wholly unsatisfactory accommodation. They are commonly called down and outs, because they are down the social and economic scale, and out of the statistics. They seek temporary refuge, even at the entrances to our tube stations, in order to have the benefit of some of the warm air that comes up, or they may sleep on the embankment because they prefer that to staying at common lodging houses. Of course, that is the extreme, and it is not the plight of many of those who become homeless, and who are accepted as such by the local authorities. However, those people still tell us something about the nature of the problem that we face.
Some of those at the extreme of homelessness, who are single and rootless , would prefer at this time of year to go to prison for a month for committing a petty offence than to endure the rigours of the open air or the problems of a common lodging house. It is not unknown for such people to plead in the magistrates' court that they should

be put in prison. That is what they want when faced with the choice of going behind bars or sleeping under the stars. It is extraordinary that people should have to end up preferring the consequences of petty crime to the alternatives facing them.
Even in the mainstream of homelessness, there have been recent cases of ordinary, respectable families who have never been involved in any kind of petty crime—I do not wish to give the impression for one moment that all single homeless people are involved in crime—having to be accommodated overnight in police stations and police cells because no other shelter was available for them. Many of those who are accepted as being homeless are not immediately and quickly allocated a home. They are put up in bed and breakfast accommodation. But bed and breakfast accommodation is a continuing form of homelessness. It is often overcrowded and insanitary and has insufficient cooking facilities. It removes people from their natural ties with the community. A minority of bed and breakfast accommodation, which is the lot of many who are accepted as being homeless, is a death trap.
I have received a note from the Home Office adjusting the figures that were given to me in a parliamentary answer on 23 June 1986. I am now told that 90 people died in fires in bed and breakfast hotels, hostels and multiple occupied properly in 1984, which is the latest year for which figures are available.
This Christmas, in Hounslow 1,000 homeless people will spend Christmas in a hotel that has been classified by environmental health officers as below minimum standards. Nevertheless, it is used by some local authorities for the placement of the homeless. In Greater London alone, on the latest available statistics for September 1986, supplied by the Association of London Authorities, 13,000 homeless households were living in temporary accommodation. Of those, 1,773 households were living in hostels, 4,128 were living in short-life accommodation, and an amazing 6,142 households were living in bed and breakfast accommodation. The total number of people would fill an empty Wembley arena three times, yet, over these winter months, they will live in another form of homelessness, in bed and breakfast accommodation.
Not all these statistics are for the hard-pressed London boroughs. Recently, I went to a Labour party meeting in Carshalton. Carshalton and affluence almost seem to go together. I discovered that, in the London borough of Sutton, about 90 families were living in bed and breakfast accommodation or temporary accommodation. Incidentally, that number is about three times higher than the number of starts of rental housing accommodation in that London borough which certainly is not deprived.
I found that, in many other parts of the country, bed and breakfast homelessness would have been unthought of a few years ago. Now, for the first time, because of the policy of cuts in housing allocations, against their better judgment, and certainly against their will, local authorities have to place homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation. Bed and breakfast homelessness destroys, sometimes literally when children die in accidents on stairs or when people die in fires. It also destroys in another sense. It destroys the personality of the people involved. The absence of possessions brings about a different attitude towards society. There is resentment.
Recently the magazine, "Roof" quoted two examples of the effect of homelessness on children. One research worker said:
Hotel children were often late walkers, late talkers and slow in keeping themselves clean. You often see children still walking around in nappies at three years old.
Another research worker found that there was a link between speech delays and the lack of play experience. She said:
When children begin to get mobile they develop their motor skills. Lack of play opportunities plus a depressed mother leads to an understimulated child who is slow to develop.
Homelessness also destroys in that manner. One sees the consequences of it sometimes only 10 or 15 years later. In Bayswater, there is a hotel in which 100 people are reported to share five cooking rings and one oven, and in which a 13-year-old child, instead of eating food cooked in the hotel, has taken to eating the cockroaches off the floor. In Streatham, in my constituency, there are 35 homeless people in the Gleneldon hotel. That hotel has no toilet seats, the wash basins are cracked, and bannister struts are missing, causing danger. In another hotel, two or three people share rooms as a result of the depressed rates of payment made by the DHSS. The Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless has informed me of a hotel in Lambeth which is now sleeping four people to a room. They are the only three hotels in Lambeth known to the Threshold Advice Service with accommodation within the new board and lodging limits.
Bed and breakfast homelessness is exploding. It is not a static figure. It is as expensive as it is debilitating. Of course, the costs paid by local authorities vary from one place to another. The Department of Health and Social Security estimates the cost of keeping families in bed and breakfast accommodation at £136 a week. That is an extraordinarily high amount being spent on the consequences of homelessness. I was provided with figures on the net revenue expenditure on bed and breakfast hotels for the homeless in London. One can get some idea of how these figures are escalating. In 1981, in Greater London, the cost of this phenomenon was £4·3 million. By 1984–85, the latest date for which I was able to obtain figures for the whole of London, that expense had risen to £12·4 million. This winter, bed and breakfast homelessness will make a bonfire of public funds, while some people will freeze because of the lack of shelter.
The 16 members of the Association of London Authorities maintain that that experience is enormously expensive and a scandalalous waste of public money, when one could engage on a programme of home purchasingve and repairs. They calculate that such a programme would bring about a cumulative saving of £45 million of public money by the financial year 1988–89. They estimate that that amount would cumulatively be saved by providing the homeless, who now go to bed and breakfast accomodation, with permanent secure homes.
This winter, the lack of shelter that will engulf so many people mainly in London, but also in other parts of the country, is a direct result of the cuts in funds that were made available for local authorities to invest in their housing programmes. That is an overall cut of about 70 per cent. in housing investment since the Government came to office. A comparison for Greater London between the cuts that took place between 1979–80 and 1984–85, adjusted for inflation, show in real terms a reduction of

expenditure on housing that was permitted by the Government in Greater London of £ 1·48 billion in 1978–79 to £58 million in 1984–85. That is a considerable cut.
That is not a natural disaster or something beyond our control. It is a disaster manufactured by the policies of 10 and 11 Downing street, abetted by the Department of the Environment. The cuts will be continued next year. It is no good the Government telling us there will be an increase in housing expenditure next year. The basic housing investment programme will suffer a further cut. The Government are only dressing up the figures with the increased receipts that will be available to some authorities to spend on housing, but only 20 per cent. of the capital receipts will be from the sale of homes. This does not help the homeless, first, because big capital receipts do not arise in the hardest-pressed boroughs; secondly, because even if receipts became available for those boroughs—such as Lambeth, Southwark and Camden—little land can be used to provide additional homes; and, thirdly, because there is generally an overall loss on rented accomodation because of the exercise of the right to buy in London where the housing is not being replaced.
The Government recently announced two initiatives which have been concentrated on London and the homeless. I shall not quibble or be resentful about those programmes. One involves the I-lousing Corporation—in the jargon, the 30 per cent. HAG scheme and a combination of public and private money. That will not be enough. It will provide 500 temporary—I emphasise the word temporary—dwellings by 1987–88. The homes will not be of the right type. Permanent homes are needed for people to rent.
The other initiative is the urban renewal housing unit scheme—the estate action unit—which will be concentrated on London boroughs. But, in most of the London boroughs where there have not been acceptances of the scheme, there has been a history of indecision and refusal. I believe that only Greenwich has been able to take advantage of the scheme.
If the Government are not keen on these measures, why do they not give a direction to the London Docklands development corporation to provide homes to rent? The one large vacant space in London is being disgracefully misused in housing terms by inadequate provision of homes to rent which could deal with some of central London's problems. We demand a reversal of fie escalating pattern of homelessness. The difficulties will 'De only slightly ameliorated by the present crumbs from tie Treasury table. We demand a programme of affordable homes to rent—some by new building, some by modernisation and some by repair. We must set local authorities with these problems free with the resources and the powers to provide the homes needed to cope with the enormous and rising tide of homelessness.
We must give new rights to bring empty properties into use, whether public or private. I hold no brief for any home that can be adapted for living which is unnecessarily left vacant. That is why, during consideration of the recent Housing and Planning Bill, the Opposition proposed a form of right to rent even of public dwellings left empty for more than six months. The Government resisted that proposal. We need an initiative that is applied in empty homes, whether in the public or the private sectors.
It is an obscenity day after clay as I drive through London to see homes that have been empty not just for a few months, because of a change of hands, but for years.


There should be power of requisition to make those homes available to a local authority, to a private individual or to a housing association to provide housing to rent. We need new rights that will make more homes available for renting.
We need a strategy for London and the other conurbations. It is no good expecting each London borough or each hard-pressed district outside London to cope entirely with its problems. If we did, the problem of dealing with homelessness would be like a number of people trying to chip their way out of their prison cells without a concerted effort to bring them liberty. The greatest contribution would be for the Government to give way to those who have the political will to deal with the appalling problem of homelessness. That is what counts and what will bring results.
This might be an appropriate time at the turn of the year for the Government at least to resolve that they will allow the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless to embrace Britain. The Government talk about that year as though, somehow, homelessness and lack of shelter were matters unknown in Britain but simply matters to be dealt with beyond this country's shores. I hope that the Government will take seriously in the forthcoming year their responsibilities to their citizens, because the numbers of homeless are growing rapidly. They deserve at least the token of Government care and compassion. However, we want not just tokens, but a new effort to provide decent, affordable housing for rent which will eliminate the problem and enormous cost of homelessness.
What is so wrong with housing for people at the extremes? It is not as though we lack the people to work on homes or the money. The building societies, the City and some local authorities are awash with funds. Sometimes, the funds of local authorities are in the wrong place, but, in the aggregate, there is not a shortage of resources and materials. With some training we can find the necessary skills. What is lacking is the political will. The Opposition resolve that the political will will be translated to deal with homelessness. It is a pity that that vigour and commitment are lacking from the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has given me a good opportunity to spell out the Government's deep and detailed concern for the homeless. At this time of the year, homelessness is a subject that is particularly on our minds, although it is on the Government's mind at all times. The details will become apparent as I continue my speech. Topically, outside we have the activities of Crisis at Christmas and a candlelight vigil outside St. Martin-in-the-Fields this afternoon, as the hon. Gentleman said. The vigil will attract press, television and radio attention and will focus the attention of the public as well as hon. Members on homelessness. It is natural that those with roofs over their heads should think particularly of those less fortunate during this festive season.
The cold is another reason why we should be particularly concerned about people sleeping out in the winter months. But some people evidently prefer the freedom of sleeping out to the restrictions which have

often in the past been imposed in emergency accommodation—dislike of available accommodation was the most commonly noted factor associated with sleeping rough in a 1984 central London report. The aim must be therefore to see there is enough acceptable emergency accommodation to meet people's needs. I welcome the progress that is being made in many areas towards this goal, assisted by the impetus being given by the proposals to close DHSS resettlement units and the Government funding being made available in that context. In so far as limited periods of particularly cold weather make temporary extra provision desirable, it is open to local authorities and the voluntary sector to consider what can be done by opening up churches, schools and other public buildings as a temporary measure if satisfactory arrangements can be made.
More generally, homelessness as a continuing and increasing problem is a matter of deep and serious concern. Not having a roof over one's head is obviously one of the most traumatic things that can happen to anyone. But it is no good Labour Members or anyone else saying that it is all the Government's fault or that the remedies lie in the Government's hands. Much of the reason for homelessness being such an intractable problem is that it reflects social factors. Of those accepted by local authorities as homeless, for instance, the proportion becoming homeless as a result of marital dispute has risen by 25 per cent. in the past seven years. To give a basis for action to help deal with this aspect we as a Government are planning to commission research on the housing consequences of breakdowns in relationships. We will also be setting up a working party with the local authority associations to consider the implications for housing management in the public sector. Young people are also, it seems, continuing to leave home without fully appreciating the difficulties of finding other accommodation. Here, as a preventive measure, the Government are helping to fund the production of a leaflet by the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless Trust for wide distribution in schools and youth clubs advising young people thinking of leaving home on other accommodation prospects.
Mortgage arrears as a proportion of homeless acceptances have also doubled over the past seven years. This is another area where preventive work can help. Mortgage arrears problems arise for a number of reasons, but whatever the cause the answer is fundamentally the same—go to the lender as soon as possible to explain the circumstances in which one finds oneself. Respectable lenders take most seriously the need to try to resolve these problems early and in the right way. They are often willing, for example, to reschedule the loan or allow interest-only payments until the borrower can afford the full repayment again. For our part we have given a grant to the Birmingham settlement money advice centre to set up a national telephone counselling service to advise people in difficulties with debt repayment problems.
We also give a good deal of support to other organisations concerned with preventing people becoming homeless. Our overall budget for funding those projects and other housing advice services provided by voluntary bodies to the general public or to particular sectors, for example, prisoners, or young people leaving care, has been increased by over 50 per cent. in the past year or so and is now in excess of £500,000 per year. Prevention of homelessness is an important area and it may be that some


local authorities would find that greater attention to it—by counselling and in other appropriate ways—would represent good value for money.
As hon. Members will be aware, it is on local authorities that the primary responsibility for helping homeless people rests. Homelessness is a factor in our allocation of resources to individual authorities and for 1986–87 this was altered to give a better measure of homelessness problems in each area. It is for authorities to decide for themselves their priorities for investment, but we have asked them to concentrate their resources on the homeless and other groups in special need.
Given the inevitable limitations on resources, it is essential to see that good use is made of existing property. Authorities must of course look carefully first at how efficiently they are managing their own resources. Can they do more to reduce the number of their empty dwellings and to speed up relets? There were—in some ways it is unbelievable—113,300 empty council dwellings at 1 April 1986 including 27,100 which have been empty for over a year. We have taken a number of steps over the past year or so to encourage greater use of empty properties. We issued advice on this in July last year and extended grant to properties awaiting major repairs. We are currently consulting the local authority associations about a proposed general consent to authorities disposing to housing associations of an interest in such properties by way of leases of up to five years. And we help fund the empty property unit which gives advice on the use of empty housing.
Our most substantial recent measure has clearly been our offer of direct help through the estate action unit for authorities with the most acute homelessness problems. Extra resources as well as the unit's knowledge and expertise, which are considerable, have been offered to authorities which can take immediate advantage of them to bring empty dwellings back into use for homeless families. We have already announced approval of projects in London in Newham, Greenwich and Islington, and today I am happy to make the first announcement that we have now also approved projects for five authorities outside London—South Tyneside, York, Woodspring, Rushmoor and Milton Keynes. In all, this involves extra resources of £1·25 million with 130 dwellings being brought into use for the homeless. I hope that other authorities with similar problems will also now be able to take advantage of our offer.
Increasing the use of existing housing to benefit homeless people is an area where a number of authorities are beginning to show imagination. Bromley, Brent and Croydon, for instance, are providing financial incentives to encourage existing council tenants to move out and buy in the private sector. We are watching these schemes closely to see what lessons may emerge. Brent has had some success in persuading owners to lease empty flats above shops to provide interim accommodation for the homeless. Bexley has, with our financial support, launched a campaign to encourage owner occupiers to take in lodgers. Other councils perhaps need to consider more imaginative ways of encouraging futher use of their properties and of concentrating tenancies on those in the greatest need.
At the same time we are discussing with the Housing Corporation how to target its resources more on homelessness both inside and outside its housing stress areas. We are also taking action to make its resources go

further by bringing in private finance. In particular, by using the new provisions on assured tenancies in the Housing and Planning Act 1986, grant at no more than 30 per cent. and private finance for the rest, housing associations will be able to provide decent accommodation for homeless families until permanent housing can be found. An additional £20 million of resources has been allocated for schemes in conjunction with the private sector and, together with the £10 million previously allocated, this will permit additional expenditure of about £100 million. This is an important breakthrough and the main beneficiaries will be young people moving to take up jobs and homeless families currently in bed and breakfast accommodation. The growing use of bed and breakfast—

Mr. John Fraser: The Minister has used the phrase additional resources more than once in relation to the estate action project and the Housing Corporation scheme. Am I right in thinking that both these initiatives are simply funded by monies which have been subtracted or transferred from other parts of each programme and do not represent additional new resources? In one case the funds have been subtracted from the total housing investment programme and in the other from the total of funds to the Housing Corporation.

Mr. Tracey: The resources are being specially targeted in a particular way and will use the expertise and knowledge of our housing experts. The hon. Gentleman is correct about such resources. Those resources are now being directed by the Government in a much more useful and valuable way than was previously the case.
The growing problem of bed and breakfast is a matter of serious concern to the Government. Our code of guidance to authorities on the homelessness legislation, now part III of the Housing Act 1985, regards the use of bed and breakfast as very much a last resort as interim accommodation. It is clearly unsuitable for families for any considerable period and is also usually the most expensive form of accommodation, as a recent Audit Commission report has made clear. The continuing increase in the number of homeless households being placed in bed and breakfast by authorities—5,400 in England at the end of June 1986, including 3,820 in London—and the reported increase in length of stay, with one or two London authorities warning new applicants that they would face a three-year stay in bed and breakfast, is alarming by any standards.
As you probably know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my Department is undertaking a programme of research on homelessness. This will cover in particular how authorities operate the homelessness legislation and their use of temporary accommodation, including bed and breakfast. It is certainly not clear to me why, for example, some authorities make so much more use of bed and breakfast than others in what look like relatively similar situations. Our research involves a postal survey of all authorities in England and Wales, case studies of individual authorities, interviews with people in bed and breakfast and other forms of temporary accommodation and an appraisal of standards. We expect to receive the report of the postal survey in February and the rest of the research results in late 1987 or early 1988.
While on this point, it is worth emphasising how important it is that authorities should co-operate in such


research and in completing our quarterly statistical returns on homelessness. We are considering what we can do to improve authorities' response and it was gratifying to have the support of the hon. Member for Norwood when he said:
I have no hesitation in saying that there should be an absolute duty on local authorities to supply the information that is essential for us to make policy decisions, irrespective of political control".—[Official Report, 3 November 1986; Vol. 103, c. 745.]
I note that the hon. Gentleman said "us" and we join across the House in that point. It beats me how authorities can imagine it is in their own interest to deny us such information.
I mentioned earlier what some authorities were doing to reduce reliance on bed and breakfast and I have referred to our initiatives through the estate action unit and the Housing Corporation to target additional resources on homeless families with the same goal. Permanent accommodation is of course, as our code makes clear, the aim for the homeless just as it is the wish of people in general. We have done a lot to help those who wish to buy their own homes and have taken some steps—for example, on shorthold and on assured tenancies—to encourage the provision of rented accommodation in the private sector, but we fully accept that for others, including the large majority of those accepted by authorities as homeless, renting from a local auhority or from a housing association is, at the moment at least, the only answer. How authorities allocate their housing is basically a matter for each authority to decide, taking into account their duties to the homeless and other statutory obligations.
Finally, the House will, I am sure, expect me to say something about housing resources. This year we increased the planned level of public sector investment in housing to £3,253 million—£200 million above the 1985–86 figure. For 1987–88 we are making a further increase to £3,661 million—£451 million higher than previously planned. But, whatever the level of housing investment, we can be sure that it will always fall short of the ideal as in so many other areas of life. Therefore, it will remain important to make the best use of the public sector resources that are available and to augment those as far as possible with private sector resources. Our breakthrough with housing association schemes is a good sign of this.
It is no good hon. Members saying that this is all a matter of resources. It is not. There is no panacea. It is important to do what we can to prevent homelessness. I hope that I have pinpointed that very clearly. In an era of perpetually rising expectations, prevention of homelessness is difficult enough, but it is also important to look carefully at the large number of relatively small measures—for example, those initiatives being taken by some of the London boroughs to encourage greater use of existing dwellings—which can improve flexibility and remove unnecessary obstacles. This is an essential area for effort, enterprise and good ideas. That brings far more dividends than any striking of political attitudes by Opposition

Mrs. Kuldip Kaur

Mr. Terry Dicks: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the problems facing a constituent of mine and his wife who is being held in prison by the Indian Government. In those circumstances, some background information may be of use.
Mr. Paul Bedi and his wife are both British subjects and are respected in the Asian community, not only in my constituency in Hayes, but throughout Britain. I have letters which prove their status in and value to the community. Indeed, one of those letters is from the Prime Minister and is dated 3 June 1985.
Mr. Bedi is a Sikh leader. He is a teacher of mentally handicapped children in Ealing and he is, for how long we cannot now be sure, chairman of the Anglo-Asian Conservative Society.
Earlier this year, in May, Mr. Bedi's wife undertook a trip to India to make arrangements for her daughter's dowry. When she arrived in New Delhi she was met by the eldest son of the Minister for Home Affairs in Delhi, a Mr. Buta Singh. The son arrived at the airport and quickly took Mrs. Bedi—who is also known as Mrs. Kaur—through immigration and customs. She was driven to where she was staying and subsequently during that visit she dined twice with the Home Affairs Minister. Indeed, she received VIP treatment on a surprising scale.
While Mrs. Bedi was there, she attempted, at the request of friends in Britain, to meet someone who had been detained by the Indian Government merely because he had lost his passport. She made an effort to see that person but because the arrangements took place in another part of India she was unable to do so. After making arrangements for the dowry and having had those social meetings with the Home Affairs Minister, she returned to the United Kingdom. That was a fairly uneventful visit.
I should add that the brother of Mr. Buta Singh, the Home Affairs Minister, who is the equivalent to our Home Secretary, also lives in my constituency, and is a friend and supporter of Mr. Bedi and his wife.
When Mrs. Bedi returned to the United Kingdom her eldest daughter's wedding took place and she received good wishes from the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons. I have copies of the letters sent by them to Mr. Bedi and his wife.
During that time there was an election for the post of chairman of the Anglo-Asian Conservative society and, like the good politician he is, and we all try to be, Mr. Bedi decided he would do his best to ensure that he became chairman. He was successful on 18 August. I have to say that there is a great deal of anger among the people he defeated, in particular a Mr. Saroop, who has managed the organisation for some time. He took it upon himself to say some rather angry things about Mr. Bedi and to him because of the result. I make no comment about democracy within that society. All I can say is that it seems good politics to ensure, if one wants to win something, that one has friends who will vote in one's favour and out vote one's opponents. That is the story of the events that occurred between Mrs. Bedi's first visit to India and the second visit.
She went to India again on 27 August to see her father who was sick and to show the family some pictures of the wedding and other information. She took with her the


cutting from an Asian newspaper printed in this country which showed pictures of the wedding. Unfortunately for her, instead of photocopying one side of the paper, she took the newspaper with her. On the reverse side of the details of the wedding and the support from the Prime Minister and others, there was an advertisement regarding Sikh extremist leaders. That will become significant.
As I have said, she arrived to see her father and relatives and had quite a long stay in India. On 18 October she was on her way to the airport with somebody from the British high commission in New Delhi who was seeing her off. As she was about to board the aeroplane in the early hours of the morning she was taken off by the police for questioning. One of the things they held against her was the cutting that shows the details of the wedding on the front and on the back details of the extreme Sikh movement.
She was questioned for a considerable time but no charges were made against her. Her passport was taken away and she was told to make frequent appearances at the police station in New Delhi. Throughout the 14 days from the time of her arrest I made contact with the Foreign Office and the Minister responsible for consular matters. I had several phone calls and actually met him to discuss the situation. In fact, I took Mrs. Bedi's husband with me on one occasion. It seemed impossible for the Foreign Office and the high commission in India to get very far. They were thwarted and were not told what the likely charges would be. They were not told whether she was to be released.
It was generally suggested that the Anglo-Indian situation is a bit delicate at the moment and that India is concerned about Britain being friends of Sikhs and not deporting Sikh extremists—people whom the Indians think are Sikh extremists. It was said that the matter should be kept low key because the Government do not want to exacerbate the situation.
After 12 days of getting nowhere fast, at the request of Mr. Bedi and some of his colleagues I decided to fly to New Delhi to see whether I could intervene on behalf of Mrs. Bedi, who was not allowed to come home. When I arrived on 31 October the high commission had been unable to arrange for me to see anyone. The authorities concerned flatly refused to see any representatives of Mrs. Bedi, despite the fact that she was my constituent and I had flown from the United Kingdom to try to influence the situation.
Because of the inability of our high commission to arrange a meeting for me with Mrs. Bedi, who was able to move freely around Delhi, I met a local politician who put me in touch with the Speaker of the Indian House of Commons. Within five minutes of meeting that man he had picked up the telephone, got through to Mr. Buta Singh, the Home Affairs Minister, and a meeting was arranged for me the next morning, Monday 3 November, at Mr. Buta Singh's office. I was made to feel as if I had asked to have an audience with, if I may use the expression, our Lord. I was made to feel that I was lucky to have the opportunity to meet such a man.
I arrived at 11 o'clock that morning and was ushered into his office. After the usual niceties he said, "Have you something for me—a gift?" In my usual ignorance of such affairs I pretended that I did not know what he was talking about and, effectively, the interview ended. He told me that he knew nothing of the family or of the case. He said that he would have to take advice from his officials.

I have a reference from the same Mr. Buta Singh dated 31 October 1965 which he gave on behalf of Paul Bedi. It says that he is a social worker and the reference goes on:
I have known him for long past. He has impressed me with his devotion towards the national integration movement of India.
In spite of that, he sat there and told me he knew nothing of the family or the case. I asked him whether he had had a phone call from his own brother who lives in my constituency on behalf of the lady. He did not answer. I asked him whether he had had a phone call from Mr. Bedi direct and he did not answer. He then said that he had an important Cabinet meeting to attend and we had to end the meeting. He said that he would ring at 5 o'clock that evening, 3 November, to tell me What had happened and what views he might have after locking into the case. I am still waiting for that telephone call.
The next day through the high commission I attempted to obtain an audience—I suppose that is the correct word to use for the Prime Minister of India these days in view of the way he lords it around the world—to see whether I could raise the matter at that level. I was told by the high commission through the Prime Minister's private office that he would be ringing me later that day. Again, I am still waiting for that phone call. In the meantime, I went with Mrs. Bedi to the police headquarters in New Delhi. I cannot find words to describe the conditions at the so-called police headquarters. If the prisons of India are anything like the police headquarters, I have great concern for the people of that country who might be interned within them.
I arrived at police headquarters for a meeting with the deputy commissioner of police who was again to interrogate this lady at 1 o'clock. We were still sitting there at 3 o'clock although she and her lawyer had been separated from me. At 3 o'clock that afternoon I was asked to leave. I said that I was not prepared to leave until I had heard what they were saying and what they were going to do to my constituent. My constituent's lawyer then advised me to go because they said I might be locked up. There may be some people in this country, perhaps in my own party, who would prefer that. However, I decided to take the lawyer's advice and I left.
It was 9.40 that evening, after nine hours, that that lady was allowed to leave. Again, they did not tell her whether she was to be charged. She left in a very distraught state. In my submission, she was in no fit state to be treated in that way. I am not qualified in the medical profession, but one could see that she was on the point of a breakdown and that she needed help, support and understanding. I would add that that was given by the high commission. Miss Docherty, who was responsible for consular affairs, performed an excellent job, doing all she could to support the lady.
I came back and reported to the Foreign Office on this matter. While I was in India I was told quite clearly by the high commission staff that, "The British Government are very concerned about Anglo-Indian relations. We must not give the impression that we are treating this lady differently from any other consular case because the Indian Government might say that we are treating her specially because she is a Sikh and they might say that the British Government are treating Sikhs specially and harbouring potential terrorists."
I find all of that rather amazing bearing in mind the long friendship that Mr. Bedi and his wife had—


perhaps still have, I do not know—with the Minister for Home Affairs. I asked the Foreign Office if it could tell me in how many other consular cases the prisoner involved was a personal friend of somebody the equivalent of our Home Secretary, had been welcomed by him in his official car, taken to his home and dined with him twice. Indeed, I forgot to mention that when Mrs. Bedi was lifted from the plane she had gifts from Mr. Buta Singh, the Home Affairs Minister, for his brother in this country. I have never heard of a similar case in which such circumstances have taken place.
The other interesting thing is that some time after my return Mr. Bedi had a personal telephone call from the Indian high commissioner in this country, saying: "Have you heard the good news?" Mr. Bedi said "No, what is it?" The reply was, "Your wife is to be released, and she is coming home." One can imagine the delight in the husband's heart when he heard that. He told his children, and they were thrilled to hear that at last their mother would be coming home. An hour later Mr. Bedi had a telephone call from his wife's lawyer, saying, "She is being charged and she is moving from the place where she is staying outside the police headquarters to a cell in the police headquarters."
What sort of country is it that can tell the high commissioner in this country to pass on personally to a man the message that his wife is being released and within the hour tell him the opposite? It is appalling for a so-called liberal, civilised Government to behave in that way. However, when I was asked for a bribe by the Home Affairs Minister, I should not have been surprised by such an attitude. I understand that we give about £114 million in various sorts of overseas aid to India. I do not know why. If that is the sort of Government who run that country, I reckon that we could almost double the Christmas bonus that we give to our old-age pensioners by redirecting India's money to them. That is a personal view, but it shows how strongly I feel about the disgusting treatment meted out by the Indian Government to my constituent, and about their attitude.
A newspaper cutting dated 30 November this year states:
The investigating agency admits that so far there is no concrete evidence against Mrs. Kaur.
I say to our Foreign Office that it is no good sitting down and playing the waiting game, saying, "Let's see what happens. Let's keep it quiet." That is not the way in which to treat this situation. If we could intervene at the top level with the Iranian Government to get the release of a British subject in Iran, why on earth are we not intervening at the top level to get Mrs. Bedi released, when she is being held on what I consider to be trumped-up charges?
We must discuss the Anglo-Asian Conservative Society. I understand from a newspaper today that is likely to be disbanded after a meeting in Conservative Central Office this morning, although, on checking with Central Office, I was told that it is not likely to happen. In the newspapers and elsewhere it has been suggested that there has been a secret takeover of the Anglo-Asian Conservative Society. Before the election took place, Sikh representation on the society was low. We are told that the Sikhs have taken over, and that is one of the reasons why Central Office has taken such action.
Let me tell the House what the breakdown of the society's executive committee is since the election in August. There are five Moslems, five Sikhs, three Hindus, one Bengali and one Englishman. Does that sound like a Sikh takeover? Does that sound like an organisation that has a one-sided view of what is needed to help our party win the next election? It does not seem so to me.
Mr. Saroop, who has manipulated and managed the society for many years—he has been chairman for six years out of a possible 12—was annoyed about this allegation. It is alleged—I say "alleged" advisedly—that he has contacts in India. It is not surprising to hear that when pressure was put on Mrs. Bedi, when she was in India, that was just after the election of her husband to the position of chairman. She was vulnerable to pressure in India by those over there who hate the thought of a genuine Sikh, who represents the community, and who has the support of the Hindu and Moslem groups in this country, running what the Indian Government consider to be an influential organisation.
It is not difficult to believe that pressure has been brought upon Mrs. Bedi so as to get Mr. Bedi to resign from his post over here, but, judging by the newspaper reports, the information that I am beginning to get is that he will have to resign or he will be kicked out. The organisation has been in existence for 11 years, and it is strange that the first time a Sikh takes the chair democratically the society has to be re-examined to make it more representative. The figures that I have given show how representative the society is.
The general feeling among correspondents in India to whom I spoke when I was there, and this is shown in the press coverage since then, is that Mrs. Bedi might be being held out there on trumped-up charges as a result of the political situation in this country. I often think that the Foreign Office always looks to the Foreign Office's interests first and the British interests afterwards. Again, that is a personal view, although I know that it is held by other colleagues, too. Yet again the Foreign Office wants to treat this as a consular matter when I believe that it is more important than that.
In the first stages, when the Foreign Office was short of information, it was doing all that it could. I praised it at the time, as well as the high commission in India, but the circumstances have changed. Mrs. Bedi is being held in prison. The police authorities have said that they can find nothing against her. Do they release her? Not on your life, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They have passed the facts to the intelligence agency so that the agency can take up the case. It is strange that Mr. Buta Singh, the man who is so keen on gifts before he does anything, is the very person who is in charge of the police and who arranged for Mrs. Bedi to be arrested and have the case passed on to the intelligence agency.
The Indian Government's behaviour is nothing short of appalling. It should be understood to be that and put on the public record. That is the reason why I have raised the case today. I want our Foreign Office to take a high profile. We know how important diplomacy is, and we also know the failures of diplomacy, but sometimes it demands that this country stands up for its subjects, no matter where they are and where they are being abused. It is not good enough to whisper in the corridors of power, "Don't worry. Things will work out all right if we play a


low profile. Don't forget, Mr. Dicks, when you speak about your constituent, we have to concern ourselves with Anglo-Indian relations."
Mr. Bedi has the support of Asians throughout the community—not just Sikhs. The whole Asian community is watching what is happening. A strange turn of events is that Asians are saying, "Is it because Mrs. Bedi happens to be Asian that things are not being done on her behalf by our Foreign Office?" I have my suspicions about why things are not happening. I have a firmly held belief that the Indian Government want the case to die quietly, and if they do, so does our Foreign Office. I could believe that some progress was being made were Mrs. Bedi still being questioned and free to move around Delhi, but now she has been arrested. She is in a state of mental torture, if nothing else. Yet, after the police said that there was no evidence on which they could charge her so far, she has now been passed over to the security forces.
What will our Foreign Office do about that? Will it just sit back and let that lady languish in a cell? In the previous debate we heard about the needs of the homeless at Christmas time. What about the needs of Mrs. Bedi? I know that she is not a Christian, but her family living in this country enjoys Christmas as Christians do. While we are celebrating, that lady is likely to be languishing in a prison in India because of a corrupt Government. I say that advisedly. The legal advice that I received out there was that that lady and others there can be locked away pending police inquiries for 10, 15, or 20 years. The deputy commissioner told my constituent's lawyer out there, "You should feel yourself lucky that I happened to look at her case twice in a fortnight. I have some cases on my desk that I do not look at for as long as six months." Between the police examining those cases and saying, "Shall we question somebody else?" the people involved are left in prison cells or kept under house arrest. Is that the way in which the biggest democracy in the world should operate? I do not believe so.
I want our Foreign Office to take action and to adopt a high profile. I want it to be said, almost at Prime Ministerial level, that British citizens will not be treated in that way, as happened with Iran. We ought not to go crawling to the Indian Government, who do not know how to behave in a humanitarian way. The next time the Indian Prime Minister starts lecturing this country on our foreign policy towards South Africa or anywhere else, he should remember the British adage, "People in glass houses should not throw stones."

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) for the well-being of his constituent and for the distress suffered by her family in the United Kingdom. I pass on to my hon. Friend the apologies of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who is away on Foreign Office business. That is why I am present this morning in his stead. However, we have spoken to my hon. Friend the Minister on the telephone and he was made aware of what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington was likely to say this morning. I have taken specific advice.
I greatly regret some of the language that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has seen fit to use in referring to the Indian Government and the legal

processes in that Commonwealth country. I firmly reject his suggestion that this Government or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are unsympathetic to the welfare of their citizens abroad, or of the hard-working Sikh community in the United Kingdom, which contributes a great deal in its areas.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend has made some unpleasant and unjustified remarks about members of the diplomatic service this morning. In all my inquiries into this case, I cannot fault those members for having tried to help as best they can under the circumstances. I think that we must face what has happened by considering the facts I am sure that that is exactly what my hon. Friend would wish, even though his information has led him down a path which I cannot follow.
My hon. Friend knows, as he described—and I have the papers containing the dates before me—that Mrs. Kaur was formally charged on 6 November 1986 under two sections of the Indian Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1985. That is the law of India. Her case must be heard by the Indian courts, but it has yet to be heard. I am sure that hon. Members will understand that, when such a case is before the court of a land, the circumstances make it very difficult for me to comment on the substance of the case.
We do not know the specific details of the charges beyond the formal statement to which I have already referred. Mrs. Kaur's case has been handled in a manner which is fully in accordance with the legal procedures of the Republic of India. They may not be exactly the same as ours, but we cannot enforce our system on the Indian Government. They have their system. There is legal provision for the police to prevent departure from the country of people whom they wish to question in connection with possible criminal charges. That is a provision within Indian law.
Mrs. Kaur was free to move within Delhi while holding herself ready for questioning. Charges were laid against her on 6 November. By the order of the chief metropolitan magistrate, she was remanded in police custody until 12 November. On 10 November the magistrate gave permission for our consul to visit Mrs. Kaur. On 12 November the magistrate ruled against the police application for an extension of police remand and directed that Mrs. Kaur be remanded in judicial custody.
According to the Indian code of criminal procedure, the accused must be produced at not more than 15–day intervals before a magistrate who can then remand the accused for a maximum of 60 days. Mrs. Kaur was remanded on 27 November and 6 December.
Legal proceedings are, as my hon. Friend will know, normally the preserve of state Governments. Under the Indian Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act the central Government may, after consultation with the state Government, directly exercise all the powers conferred by the Act. We do not know why the central authorities have taken over Mrs. Kaur's case. We cannot therefore confirm press speculation that this relates to the nature of the evidence against her. Had I other information for my hon. Friend, I would give it to him. However, I simply do not have any.
Visits by consular staff to Mrs. Kaur have occurred on several occasions. My hon. Friend will know that The rights of access due under the Vienna convention on consular relations, of which both we and India are signatories, have been granted. I also understand that


hearings for Mrs. Kaur's application for bail have been postponed several times. Two of the postponements were for legal reasons and, on one occasion, there was a strike throughout Delhi, which made a hearing impossible. However, on three occasions the postponement was at the request of Mrs. Kaur's lawyer, Mr. Jethmalani, who works out of Bombay. Those dates on which the hearings of bail were adjourned at the request of Mrs. Kaur's lawyer were 17, 26 and 28 November.
Although I understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend and of Professor Bedi, the criticisms of the slow handling of the case are unfounded. I do not believe that under the legal system operating in India matters could have progressed faster given that there have been three adjournments at the request of Mrs. Kaur's lawyers.
I want to bring the House up to date with the latest legal position. The hearing on Mrs. Kaur's bail application was held on 17 December. Having heard it, the special magistrate reserved his position until today. We have no information at the moment as we have yet to hear his ruling. However, under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1985, the court can remand cases at 60-day intervals up to one year before trial. That is the law in India.
Hon. Members will understand from my account that we have sought to give Mrs Kaur, as a United Kingdom citizen, all the normal consular assistance in India. The high commission was in constant touch with her from the moment in mid-October—the night of 17 October—when she was prevented from leaving India until she was formally arrested and charged three weeks later. Since then she has been visited regularly by consular staff. I assure my hon. Friend that the high commission is continuing to monitor Mrs. Kaur's case, just as it monitors those cases of other British nationals detained in India regardless of colour or creed. I must refute my hon. Friend's comments with regard to Mrs. Kaur's Indian origin. She is a British citizen and she is being treated as such by our high commission.
It might be helpful if I made a few general comments about consular assistance abroad. Last year we produced a most useful booklet explaining what our consuls abroad can and cannot do for British nationals in trouble. Any British national living, working or travelling abroad is subject to the laws of that country. Our consuls cannot intervene in the due process of law in another country. If British nationals are detained our consul will visit them, ensure that they know their rights under local laws, tell them how to obtain legal representation and ensure that they are not discriminated against by reason of their foreign nationality.
It might be informative for the House to know that so far this year 2,106 arrests have been notified to us by our posts overseas, and that at any one time we reckon to have approximately 1,300 British nationals in prison abroad. That is the background. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington believes that this case is different. Quite honestly, publicity does not always pay off. We have been accused this morning—as we are accused sometimes in other cases—of doing nothing. We very often find that a low-key approach has resolved a problem when public acrimony has only aggravated it. I am concerned that we should use words with great care in this case and be extremely judicious in the way in which

we deal with sensitive matters concerning the freedom of a British citizen held in India. Before making any intemperate statement, it is worth reflecting very hard as to whether it will help or damage her position. The legal process must be used and we have sought to ensure that that is the case.
Any suggestion that Mrs. Kaur may have been discriminated against on racial grounds is for the Indian Government to answer, but in our experience of cases in India over a long period there are no grounds for believing that to he true. My hon. Friend's comments about the resources spent helping hundreds of thousands of Indians through our aid programme were unworthy of him. That help goes to many poor and needy people in India and we have a responsibility in that respect.
Referring to his visit to India, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made some comments about Indian Ministers similar to those that he made in New Delhi. I must tell him that his comments have, indeed, caused grave offence within the Indian Government. As I was not present. I do not know the meaning intended by the words that were used. It is possible that there was a total misunderstanding.

Mr. Dicks: There was no chance of that.

Mrs. Chalker: I well know, however, that such comments will not help the cause of my hon. Friend's constituent or of the hundreds of thousands of moderate Sikhs in Britain. That is why I say this, with great regret, to my hon. Friend: how does he think that we would react if an Indian Member of Parliament came to London and referred to British Ministers in similar terms? I believe that there would be as much anger in this House as there has been in India.

Mr. Dicks: I did not create the situation. The suggestion that I mentioned came from the other party and it is unfair to suggest that I might have misunderstood. I did not misunderstand. I am sure that no Indian Member of Parliament visiting my hon. Friend the Minister or my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in this country would find himself in that kind of embarrassment.

Mrs. Chalker: I note my hon. Friend's comments.
When the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex, visited India last week the visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington was a matter for discussion. I should make it absolutely clear, however, that my hon. Friend the Minister of State went to New Delhi for talks on a wide range of issues related to the battle against terrorism and Sikh extremism—we all know that some exists—including the possibility of an extradition treaty. My hon. Friend the Minister of State discussed the case of Mrs. Kaur very thoroughly with the high commission and was satisfied, as I have explained, that everything possible was being done to help her. It was not the purpose of the visit of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to raise consular cases. We ensure that the Indian Government are well aware of our consular interests at all times.
There are concerns among the Government of India that we should rightly note. My hon. Friend the Minister of State affirmed to the Indian Government the desire of the British Government to deal effectively with a problem that afflicts both our countries and he recalled the British Government's firm commitment to the territorial integrity


and unity of India. Both Governments have strongly reiterated that the encouragement of violence and the stirring up of racial and religious prejudice have no place in our democratic countries. India has a serious problem with terrorism. As in the Community of Twelve, and now much more widely, it is agreed that we must all stand firmly against terrorism. There must be a strong cooperative effort. We know how difficult it is to deal with problems of terrorism and the Indian Government have great worries in this respect, so it is not surprising that they should seek to deal with them. We should in no way seek to undermine their efforts to combat terrorism.
That is why the case of Mrs. Kaur must remain within the Indian legal system. It must go through the full legal process and not be drawn out from it, because only in that way can the Indian judiciary continue to be independent. After all, it is based on a British system of law. In the case of any British citizen, Mrs. Kaur or anyone else, we seek to ensure that the person concerned is fully represented. Ministers within and outside the Foreign Office have taken a considerable interest in this case and we have listened carefully to everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said as well as to representations from Professor Bedi. The case has also been monitored closely in New Delhi and I cannot go along with the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington about the way in which the case is being handled. There are no grounds for political intervention. I very much hope that the case will be heard soon. Indeed, I hope that we shall hear from the magistrates later today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington suggested at one point that Mrs. Kaur might have been detained for political reasons. That is a very serious allegation. I am confident that truth and justice will prevail. We know that in addition to Mrs. Jaimalla, the junior lawyer, Professor Bedi has also employed Mr. Jethmalani, so Mrs. Kaur is well represented as the case comes to court.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also suggested that the Government in general and the Foreign Office in particular were overly concerned about Indo-British relations. Of course we should be concerned about the totality of our relations with India, but that is in no way incompatible with our active and proven concern for the well-being of all British citizens abroad and, indeed, the Sikh community in this country, which has a great contribution to make. With regard to tracing links between the member of the Sikh community concerned and her husband in relation to private letters between members of the Cabinet and Professor Bedi, I should point out that Cabinet members frequently write to people whom they know on the occasion of a wedding, especially when those people have been particularly active in seeking to help in this country, so I do not regard any of the comments that were made as particularly unusual or out of the ordinary.
I should like to make one further point about the visit of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington to New Delhi. In line with his other comments, he sought to cast doubt on whether the high commission was doing all that should be done in such a case.

Mr. Dicks: With great respect, I praised the people out there for the efforts that they had made and told them personally how grateful I was for their help and kindness while I was there. That is clearly on record.

Mrs. Chalker: I am delighted to hear it. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend made comments about how we were dealing with the case. I should make it clear that the high commissioner, in seeking to deal with my hon. Friend as fairly and openly as possible, said that it was up to my hon. Friend whether to seek publicity but that there was a risk that the Indians, who are very sensitive to criticism, especially from the British, would act unhelpfully. He went on to say that before my hon. Friend's departure he would want to think carefully about the effect on Mrs. Kaur's prospects of a public personal attack by my hon. Friend on the Home Affairs Minister there. In our judgment, such an attack on a legal Minister by a British Member of Parliament would make those authorities close ranks and delay, rather than expedite, the decision. I understand that my hon. Friend and his constituents want a quick, thorough and just decision more than anything.
My hon. Friend made a charge against the Home Affairs Minister in India and sought to imply that the attitude towards Mrs. Kaur may have changed after Professor Bedi was elected to the Anglo-Asian Conservative Society. I cannot answer for the attitudes or actions of the Government of India. There are unexplained aspects of the case, but I cannot say that the Anglo-Asian Conservative Society has all the influence that my hon. Friend seems to think it has.
My hon. Friend suggested that Mrs. Kaur's detention and charge under the Act may in some way be bound up with the affairs of the Anglo-Asian Conservative Society. My hon. Friend will well appreciate that such party matters are not for the Foreign Office to delve into. As a member of my party of nearly 30 years' standing, I have made inquiries, particularly of the national union—the voluntary side of the party—on which I served for many years before coming to this House, to find out what is going on. I understand that it is meeting this morning. If this debate had not been held, I am sure that Professor Bedi would have been at that meeting because he is certainly entitled to attend it and give his view.
Those matters are not for the House. My hon. Friend should make his representations to the chairman of the Conservative party and the chairman of the national union in whose area these decisions lie. I cannot answer for them here, but my hon. Friend's words, which will be recounted widely, are for those people, not for me.
My hon. Friend sought to imply that I could answer for the Government of India in respect of any linkage, but I cannot do that. He seemed to say that only Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers are concerned about the need for good relations between Britain and India, but he is wrong. All Government Ministers share those concerns. India is an important place in the world. It has its own democracy and works under its own laws. We are not seeking to have a great row and misunderstanding. We want to ensure that Mrs. Kaur is taken fairly and justly through the processes of law in India. That is why his wish that this case should be treated differently from any other is not a sound way of proceeding.
I have already told my hon. Friend of the interest and concern of all Ministers in this particular case. However, all cases in other countries are not the same as Mrs. Bedi's.


When there is a case, such as the one mentioned by my hon. Friend in Iran, where there is no consular access and no charge at the time of protest, that is different. But in this case the charge was made, there is full consular access and, indeed, the point is different.
We shall continue to monitor the case of Mrs. Kaur. I am confident that the Government of India are well aware of the wish in the United Kingdom that all cases before Indian courts should be handled properly and in full accordance with local legal procedures. We shall not know the full nature of the charges until the case comes to court. Naturally, we hope that that will be soon, that a fair trial will take place and that as a result of the efforts of Mrs. Kaur's lawyers everybody will be satisfied with the result of this lengthy and painful process which Professor Bedi and his wife have been going through. The greatest care is being taken over the case within Indian law.

London Residuary Body

Mr. Tony Banks: You will notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a humble Back-Bench Member advancing to the Dispatch Box for the debate. I am emboldened to do so because I understand that there is a perfectly adequate precedent that you set as a Back-Bench Member. Obviously, I have a future to look to. Because the debate may degenerate, may I take this opportunity to wish you a most happy and peaceful Christmas.
My subject for the debate is the work of the London residuary body. I last raised the topic on 23 May 1986 and I make no apologies for bringing it back again. The LRB is an unelected, unaccountable body whose members were hand-picked by the Government. It is chaired by a Thatcherite Conservative—a former local government leader—who, it would appear, is finding it a little too much for him. I understand that he physically assaulted Mr. George Nicholson, the ex-planning chair of the Greater London council, in his office recently. Clearly, the man is under some pressure and I hope that in some small way I may add to that pressure today. Obviously, I hope not to bump into him outside if that is how he deals with his political opponents. However, one should not say too much about that because my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was having his own difficulties in a curry restaurant the other night. Clearly, this muscular approach to politics is catching, but we shall try to remember that it is Christmas and he peaceful today.
Sir Godfrey Taylor's reward for asset stripping London local government and physically assaulting Labour politicians is a salary of £51,700 a year. The other members of the London residuary body board are paid at the rate of £6,246 a year for one day's work a week. That is a good job, if one can get it, but to do so it appears that one needs to be a good friend of the Tory party and Tory Ministers. When it comes to finding jobs for the boys and the girls, no one can touch the Government. I trust that we in the Labour party will learn from that.
I should like the debate to be as constructive as possible, so throughout my speech I shall direct questions to the Minister. I hope that he can answer them, but I shall understand if he cannot do so today and will give me

answers subsequently. On the composition of the London residuary body, why are there no obvious Labour politicians? Why has Margaret Hodge, for example, the chair of the Association of Local Authorities, not been appointed? I understand that she was approached earlier. Why, for example, is councillor Peter Bowness still there, bearing in mind that he was appointed because of his position as chair of the London co-ordinating committee which has ceased to exist? Do the Government intend to appoint any new members to the London residuary body board in the next six months?
Last month the House received the annual report of the London residuary body. It is a slim document, in size and in information content. The report covers only the period from August 1985 to 31 March 1986. That is the period when the GLC was in existence. The House did not receive the report until November 1986. The next report will cover the period—very important for us—from April 1986 to March 1987. On past record, it would seem that we shall not receive the next report of the London residuary body until November 1987, which will probably be after the next general election—which of course the Labour party will win—when the LRB will be packing its bags to go.
Will the Minister undertake to present the next annual report of the LRB to the House before the summer recess of 1987? There are Adjournment debates on the activities of bodies such as the LRB, but other residuary bodies exist and we shall not be given an opportunity to debate any of them in the House.
I have a letter from the Leader of the House dated 30 October which is a point-blank refusal of my request that there should be debates in Government time on the activities of those residuary bodies. That refusal highlights the Government's contempt for democratic accountability. In 1986–87, the LRB, for example, handled a budget of £480 million. It makes decisions on behalf of 7 million Londoners and is responsible for a wide range of services and public assets. Indeed, the services for which it is responsible are somewhat greater than the Government originally designed because, of course, the shambles of abolition has taken much longer to clear than the Government thought, although we told them that that would be the case.
All of the proceedings of the LRB, which are very important to Londoners, are held in secret. It is under no obligation to make information available to the public and the press and positively resists doing so. The LRB has replaced a directly elected and open council—the Greater London council. The GLC would not have wished to conduct its business behind closed doors and in secret, nor, indeed, would it have been allowed to do so. The terms of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960—an early piece of activity by the Prime Minister—do not apply to the London residuary body, or do they? I do not know.
Why did the Government table Statutory Instrument No. 1929, with the catchy title of the Local Government Reorganisation (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 6) Order 1986 that trips easily off the tongue? Was it tabled because the LRB and all the residuary bodies should have held their proceedings in public with admission for interested parties from the press and from the local areas? I should be interested to know the real reason for tabling the statutory instrument. We are told in the House that the


LRB is accountable to Parliament through Ministers. There are ways in which we can try to drag information out of Ministers, but it is a difficult job.
In my speech on 23 May, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment referred to answering 50 parliamentary questions from me on the LRB. I am sure that the number of questions from me has gone up somewhat, but the amount of information coming from the Government has not moved very much from its general level of unwilling co-operation with a Member of Parliament who has some political and personal interests in what is going on in county hall.
When I asked whether the LRB would hold its meetings in public or issue minutes or agendas to London Members or Members generally, the answer in each case was no. One can imagine the outcry that there would be if a directly elected public authority attempted to do likewise but, as I have said already, most of them would not want to do so and any of them who did would fall foul of the 1960 Act.
Clearly, information is the lifeblood of democracy, but information is a scarce commodity in the LRB. During the debate in May I was told that the LRB would be answering the points that I had made in the debate. But it took a series of letters and further parliamentary questions from me before the chairman of the LRB deigned to supply that information in a letter dated 24 October 1986. It took five months before I could get the information that was promised to me by the Minister in the House last May. No wonder I was less than impressed by the Minister's answer to my question on 21 October when he said:
I am confident that the residuary bodies are providing information in response to all reasonable queries."—[Official Report, 21 October 1986; Vol. 102, c. 831.]
All my queries were certainly reasonable, but the response was not a ready one. I trust that if the Minister promises me answers from the LRB when he replies, I shall not have to wait five months before I receive them.
On the issue of county hall, we know that the LRB is out to sell county hall. Indeed, it is spending £350,000 of ratepayers' money to encourage bids. The preferred option is a hotel and of course, with the Waterloo terminal for the Channel tunnel being located very close to county hall, that would make some sense to the hotel business. Office units are another possibility—perhaps preferred by the Prime Minister who undoubtedly would like to see county hall broken up in such a way as to make it exceedingly difficult for a Labour Government to take it back into public ownership.
At the moment, the Inner London education authority is the major user of county hall and it has been told that it must get out by 31 March 1988. In December 1985 and then in January 1986, the chair of the LRB told ILEA that if the authority was requested to move from county hall it would be provided with a capital equivalent asset at no cost to itself. That was the promise that was given by the chair of the LRB, but in summer 1986 that promise was withdrawn.
I ask the Minister whether the Government influenced the decision of the LRB to withdraw the promise to ILEA. ILEA has been in county hall since it was officially opened in 1922. The ILEA covers the same London county council boroughs that built and paid for county hall, so county hall belongs to the inner London ratepayers. Indeed, it is possible that it was paid for by those inner London

ratepayers before the LCC was abolished. I should be interested to know whether the Minister has any information on that.
It is monstrous that the owners of county hall—the inner London ratepayers and the Inner London education authority—should be evicted. There is no guarantee even that the Prime Minister would allow it to purchase its own property if it could afford it. If I was advising ILEA, I would tell it to go for a judicial review and to challenge its eviction in the courts. It would have a good case. It is certainly a good case on moral grounds, even if not in law. Sometimes morality and the law do not coincide.
One can imagine the outcry if a Government took over ICI, Unilever, the clearing banks, British Gas and British Telecom and offered those enterprises back to the shareholders for sale. But that is precisely what the Government are doing with county hall and with much of the property that belongs to the London boroughs. The LRB is saying, "If you want it, you can buy it back." They are being offered their own property. It is monstrous, but it is something that we have come to expect from the Government. Why can public property be disposed of as though it belonged to no one while private property is always sacrosanct? The ratepayers of London are being robbed by the sale of county hall as the British taxpayers are being robbed by the privatisation of our public enterprises.
I have more specific questions about county hall. Will the Minister say how many offers the LRB has received for county hall? What are the preferred uses for the building? What is the current asking price for county hall? When will the announcement of the successful offer or offers be made? The Inner London education authority's consultants have estimated that if the authority is forced to find alternative accommodation, it will cost between £100 million and £200 million. Of course, ILEA will be strappped to find such resources. Will the Secretary of State allow ILEA to stay in county hall? I realise that the Minister will have to refer that question to the Secretary of State.
The Labour leadership has made it abundantly clear that, whatever happens, county hall will be compulsorily purchased by the next Labour Government if it is disposed of to the private sector. Therefore, all prospective purchasers have been warned—not by me, but by the leader of the Labour party and the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
I deal now with the 3,500 seaside and country homes. As late as 21 November, the Minister was assuring me that negotiations were on course to transfer the homes from the LRB to Anchor housing association. But, on 12 December, the LRB announced that the deal was off and that negotiations would start afresh with several housing associations. What is happening in respect of those seaside and country homes? Why did the transfer to Anchor housing association fall through? What discussions took place between the Department and the LRB on the decision to dump Anchor? Will the Minister guarantee that London will continue to enjoy 100 per cent. nomination rights for its pensioners going to those GLC seaside and country homes? Will he give a guarantee, as his predecessor did on 20 February 1986, that, on transfer, the housing associations will broadly maintain GLC levels of rent, management and maintenance expenditure? That


is important. He must tell the occupants of those 3,500 properties that their rents and the standard of maintenance will remain broadly as they are now. He must tell the House that soon so that the elderly people who live in those houses and who are worried by the confusion surrounding the transfer can have their minds put at rest. Finally, when does he expect the transfers to be effected?
I now turn to mortgages since I am receiving a growing number of letters from the holders of GLC mortgages. Because of my position as the last chair of the GLC, I tend to attract much extra constituency work in respect of abolition matters. The letters that I have received—the Minister must know of similar letters coming into his Department—show that people believe that they are being harassed by the LRB, which wants to get rid of the mortgages to building societies. But at least 60 per cent. of the mortgage loans are at fixed interest rates, so new arrangements could cost the mortgagors money in the long run. We must also add the cost of making the transfer arrangements, which will run into hundreds of pounds in legal and valuation fees for each mortgage holder.
Will the Minister direct the LRB to pay the costs associated with the transfer of mortgages to building societies? Will he confirm that no mortgagor is obliged to transfer to a building society? We know that to be true, but it would be helpful if the Minister would underline it. What will happen to the mortgages when the LRB is wound up in four years' time, assuming that it has that amount of time left? Will those mortgages be compulsorily transferred to a nominated building society at the mortgagor's cost, or will yet another successor body be set up to handle those mortgages? How many mortgages are currently held by the LRB? Thousands of former GLC mortgage holders want to hear the Minister's answers, and I hope that he will give us some this afternoon.
I now come to the matter of Thamesmead. As a member of the Committee that considered the GLC abolition Bill, I well remember the claim of the former Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), that Thamesmead would be transferred "within days" of the GLC's abolition. Nine months later we are still waiting for that transfer to take place. On 17 November, the Minister told me that the transfer of Thamesmead from the LRB to Thamesmead Town would take place on 1 January 1987. Does the Minister stand by that reply of 17 November? Will the transfer take place on 1 January 1987?
I am open to correction, but I have heard that the Government have been putting pressure on the LRB to hand Thamesmead over to the trust with a subsidy. But the LRB says that it is under an obligation under the 1985 Act to secure the price put on Thamesmead by the district valuer. Of course, it cannot do anything else unless the Government issue a directive to the LRB. Is it, therefore, the Government's intention to issue such a directive to the LRB in respect of Thamesmead, allowing the LRB to transfer the property to the trust at less than the district valuer's price? If so, why did not the Minister issue a similar directive to the LRB in respect of the 3,500 seaside and country homes? The same problem was confronted by the LRB in its negotiations with Anchor.
I turn now to something a little more personal, which relates to the matter of the GLC's heritage collection. I wish to put something on the record. There have been

some good humoured exchanges and some very bad humoured exchanges over the GLC's family silver, as it has come to be known. As chairman of the GLC, I was responsible for having the GLC's entire collection catalogued for the first time in nearly 100 years. That collection of artefacts and documents represents the history of London local government since the middle of the 19th century. I wanted it catalogued and transferred to the Museum of London in order to keep it out of the LRB's preying hands. The decision to take that action was taken by the GLC on 17 March 1986.
As chairman of the council, I heard nothing more and assumed that all was OK. On 31 March, I removed the contents of the chairman's office from county hall, as I believed that all the items in the office belonged to the Museum of London. I was safeguarding those items for the Museum of London. I have all the documents here, although I shall not bore the House by reading them all out. However, they are here if the Minister or anyone else is interested.
On 4 April, a few days after abolition, I wrote to Max Hebditch, the director of the Museum of London, enclosing a list of the items that I had, and asking him what arrangements he would make to have them collected, or to tell me how I could deliver them. I received an acknowledgement on 7 April, and heard nothing more until I was written to, on 27 May, by a Mrs. Wendy West of the LRB. She said that she was acting on behalf of Mr. Hebditch, and offered to collect the items.
At that point, I was deeply suspicious. What was an employee of the LRB doing writing to me, saying that she was acting on behalf of the Museum of London? If the Museum of London owned all the items, why was it not writing to me saying it would come and collect those items, just as I had asked it to do on 4 April? Consequently, I started to make inquiries, and I made it clear that I was not prepared at that stage to hand over those items to the LRB, and that I wished only to hand them over to the Museum of London. Again, I heard nothing more until Sir Godfrey Taylor wrote to me on 9 July, informing me that the LRB owned the collection. That came as something of a shock to me, as I thought that I had speedily arranged the transfer of all the items to the Museum of London.
I asked for clarification from Sir Godfrey on 31 July. Dates are important. On 9 September, Sir Godfrey wrote again, laying claim to the collection. I now know that the instructions of the GLC to transfer the collection to the Museum of London were never carried out, and that they were blocked by the late, unlamented Secretary of State. Unfortunately, no one saw fit to inform me, as chairman of the GLC.
Under threat of High Court action, I handed over the catalogue of items to the LRB. I did not hand them back, because it had never had them. However, I have not handed over the catalogue itself. I had three copies made, and I asked for one for myself because I wanted to make sure that there was at least someone with a record of all the items who could be relied on to preserve their integrity as a collection. When I made that request, no one challenged it. The LRB has secured two of those catalogues and is now after the third, which is in my possession. I have offered, through my solicitors, to place that catalogue in the Library of the House of Commons, because I have now heard that senior LRB officials have been told verbally that the GLC heritage collection will be broken up, and that items will be sold if they cannot be


transferred or are refused by museums. If that is true, it is a scandal, and it justifies and vindicates all that I have said and done since 31 March. I want that collection to stay in one piece. It represents an important account of London's local government history, and it would be monstrous if the Government allowed the LRB to sell it off.
Will the Minister direct the LRB to maintain the integrity of the entire collection by transfering it to the Museum of London? If not, will he direct the LRB not to sell off any items? Will he allow me to place my catalogue in the Library of the House of Commons for the benefit of students of London local government and to preserve an independent record of the GLC's collection? The LRB has two catalogues. If it gets a third, no one will know what represents the entire collection, and what I feared back in April will then take place. Those items could start to disappear and if they do not go legally, they might go illegally.
I want to finish with a few quickies. Has the Minister received the LRB's recommendations about Hampstead heath, and if he has not, when does he expect to receive them? What will happen to the research and intelligence unit at county hall? What will happen to the scientific services, the computing service and the welfare benefit service? These are all small matters at the end of a speech but major items when one is considering the impact of the abolition of the GLC on a whole range of services vital to Londoners.
I know that I have directed many questions to the Minister, and he does not have a great deal of time to answer them, but I shall not rush him. I am happy for him to think about these questions over the Christmas period in between his turkey and his Christmas pudding, and jot down a few notes and come back to the House and let me know whether he is able to answer them. They are important questions. Let me give him some more.
Will the LRB distribute to the London boroughs all the money that it now has available? I understand that it has about £20 million in capital receipts. When will that money he distributed? It also has £300 million of notional receipts. These are very important—everything is about creative accounting and notional receipts these days. If those receipts could be transferred to the boroughs, it would relieve them of a number of capital problems. Why is it that, with all its resources, the LRB still seems intent on setting a levy for next year? I am informed that the LRB has sufficient funds to enable it to set a zero levy for 1987–88. That, of course, would mean transferring real resources to the boroughs.
Why is the LRB allowed to build up assets and resources that it clearly does not need? After all, we were told that the work and function of the LRB were all about redistributing the spoils from the GLC to the London boroughs. It would be wrong and improper for the LRB to hold on to the money that the hard-pressed ratepayers of Greater London could use during the arcane discussions about the rate support grant settlement for 1987–88.
I am obliged to the House for giving me the opportunity to raise a series of points and matters relating to the work of the London residuary body. It will be a late body when the next Labour Government is elected. I look forward to that day. Until that day arrives and the LRB is despatched, it will be up to people like me to raise the important matters about its activities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I join the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) in wishing you seasonal greetings, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I regret that many of the hon. Gentleman's comments were not made in the spirit of Christmas. It was particularly unfair of him to make an unwarranted attack on the chairman of the London residuary body. The chairman has done much to steer the procedures forward and to overcome all the difficulties that he inherited from the GLC largely because of the behaviour of some elected GLC members in the last months of the life of that organisation.
It is particularly inapposite that the hon. Gentleman should attack the chairman of the residuary body, when I understand from an extract from the 19 November edition of The London Evening Standard that he himself made threats against officials of the LRB because of his concern about what happened to the so-called GLC treasure. I understand that he said bitterly that clearly the people who were working both for the GLC and the LRB
felt it was in their career interests to thwart the wishes and instructions of the GLC.
'I won't forget that, and I won't forget the names of the persons either. If that sounds like a threat it is meant to be'.

Mr. Tony Banks: Yes.

Mr. Chope: I hear the hon. Gentleman confirm that he intended to make that threat. I do not know whether he intends to carry it out.

Mr. Banks: I hope that I can.

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman hopes that he can carry out his threat. That is a sad reflection on what should be a time of Christmas cheer.
Luckily, last night's issue of The London Evening Standard was able to put into context the abolition of the GLC and its inability to provide good quality services at. reasonable cost to London. Under a leader headed "A Christmas Bonus", The London Evening Standard recorded:
It will be particularly galling to supporters of the late unlamented Greater London Council that the one area in which it most prided itself on its service to ratepayers—public transport—has prospered even more mightily under the successor authority. Ratepayers' subsidy to London's tube and bus network has been dropping steadily since London Regional Transport took over from the GLC. This Christmas they are being given a further bonus of £36 million in lowered contributions, giving boroughs room to cut their rates, should they wish to. LRT has achieved this by carrying more passengers more efficiently. We wish them an even happier New Year!
It is significant that the hon. Gentleman spent two thirds of the time available for this debate dealing mainly with more detailed matters. He spent little time commenting on the major achievements of the abolition of the GLC and the major achievements of the London residuary body.

Mr. Banks: That is not my job.

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman said that that is not his job. Hon. Members must bear in mind what he said before the abolition of the GLC. He predicted doom and disaster. He was sceptical about the savings that could or would be made and suggested that the LRB would cost more money and be less efficient. It is worth pointing out exactly what has been achieved so far. Far from the


problems worsening and the predictions of doom and gloom being fulfilled, matters are much better. Tasks assigned to the London boroughs are being carried out without many effects, except beneficial ones, on consumers. It is worth paying tribute to the boroughs for the way in which they have taken over new and enhanced functions.
I do not think that any reasonable Labour politician really believes that a Labour Government—in the unlikely event of there ever being another—would wish to reinstitute the Greater London council. The GLC was attacked privately by Labour party members while it existed, and now it is not lamented at all. Only the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and one or two of his hon. Friends seem to have a sentimental attachment to the GLC.
It will not be long before the GLC is completely forgotten but the savings which will have resulted from abolition will not be forgotten. The manpower savings which were expected to result, and which my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the Environment predicted, are being implemented. In London there has been a net reduction of 4,600 full-time posts because of abolition. This will bring a continuing annual saving to London ratepayers. In the first year following abolition, the saving net of one-off redundancy payments and of detriment payments will be about £30 million. In subsequent years, savings will rise to an estimated £52 million a year. Further significant savings will come as the LRB winds down its activities.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West raised many detailed issues. I shall try my best to answer some and reply by letter to those which I cannot answer. I hope that those questions which are for the LRB will be answered faster than in the past. I do not seek to defend the position where the LRB has apparently overlooked replying to letters. The hon. Gentleman, by raising many questions to which he already knows the answers, causes a certain scepticism to develop in the minds of members of the LRB.
Those members were appointed by the Secretary of State under section 57 of the Local Government Act 1985, including a member of the co-ordinating committee as provided under section 57(4). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sees no need at present to make further appointments to the LRB. It is well on the way to fulfilling its objective of doing itself out of a job. There seems to be no reason to change its membership.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the report and accounts of the LRB and referred to those for 1985–86. Obviously, no annual report and accounts can be laid before the House until they are received, so I cannot give any guarantees. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that he wishes the LRB's activities to be subject to debate. By raising the matter, the hon. Gentleman has been able to achieve that objective. I am sure that he will not be slow in coming forward to raise issues of concern to him.
The Government have always accepted that residuary bodies need to be accountable. That is why the 1985 Act imposed on them an audit regime giving public access to their accounts, with the provision that they should produce annual reports. That is an appropriate regime of accountability for such bodies, but for the public to have the right to come to their formal sessions is inappropriate

and unnecessary. It would be wrong to impose such a burden on bodies which are largely administrative with a limited life and no powers to initiate policies. That is why the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 was not applied to residuary bodies. The order to which the hon. Gentleman referred was laid to avoid any doubt that the 1960 Act does not apply.
The future of county hall is a matter for the London residuary body. The building has been put on the market and, in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, so far there have been some 250 enquiries. Perhaps those enquiries are further evidence of the view held outside the House that the Labour party has no hope whatever of being elected to Government. In view of the background of threats to compulsorily purchase county hall—that apparently is Labour party policy—there would be little interest within the private sector in purchasing it if it was believed that those threats could ever be implemented. Those 250 enquiries speak for themselves.
As a former member of the Inner London education authority, I am aware of that authority's interest in county hall and its continuing need for headquarters accommodation. The LRB has given ILEA notice to quit by 31 March 1988 but ILEA has asked the Government to direct the LRB to make a proposal for the free transfer of the building to ILEA. That request is receiving careful consideration. I must emphasise, however, that we have always taken the view that ILEA's continued occupation of county hall and the question of alternative accommodation are matters for negotiation between ILEA and the LRB.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Chope: I will not give way as I have only four minutes left. This is a 45 minute debate and the hon. Gentleman took up half an hour.
The LRB has also submitted planning applications to Lambeth, but it would not be right for me to comment on those matters as they may well come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in due course.
With regard to ILEA, it is worth reminding ourselves that it employs around seven administrative staff for every 1,000 pupils or students and that is against an average in England of three administrative staff. Even after allowing for London weighting, ILEA spends twice as much on administration per pupil as the average.

Mr. Spearing: Hear, hear.

Mr. Chope: It spends 30 per cent. more per pupil than the inner city authorities of Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle and 60 per cent. more than the Labour authority in Birmingham. Last year, ILEA kept nearly 500 teachers supernumerary to its own generous establishment. ILEA's finances should be considered in that context and especially as it employs many more administrative staff than would seem to be necessary.
The matter of mortgages has been causing concern to a number of people. I would like to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West in some detail. The fact is that no one who has a former GLC mortgage would be compelled to pay any charge for the transfer of his or her mortgage. The letter from the LRB was an invitation to borrowers to refinance their


mortgages through one of five building societies. The offer is entirely voluntary. The letter did say that anyone who took advantage of it would have to pay certain charges, but there is no obligation on any borrower to refinance his mortgage through this initiative.
When the LRB is wound up any mortgages remaining with it must be transferred to the successor body. I assure the House that, whatever arrangements are made, they will take full account of borrowers interests. I give the categorical assurance that there will be no question of any fee being charged to borrowers for the transfer. It is not yet possible to say what those arrangements will be. It is for the LRB to propose a scheme for the disposal of any properties, rights and liabilities remaining with it when it is wound up. In due course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider carefully the scheme brought forward by the LRB and will take appropriate steps to see that mortgages are transferred to a reputable successor and that borrowers' interests are fully protected.
With regard to seaside and country homes, I understand that the LRB is now inviting offers from six or seven housing associations. After discussions with the Housing Corporation, a decision will be made on those housing associations which can fulfil the responsibilities. That offer has been made following the breakdown in negotiations with the Anchor housing association. It is a matter for the LRB. There have been problems in making progress because of a wide difference of view on the valuation of the homes. That is why those negotiations are now being widened. But, given that the LRB has a duty to London's ratepayers to secure the best price reasonably obtainable in the circumstances, it is understandable that it should now wish to pursue those alternative options. I hope that satisfactory arrangements will shortly be concluded for the future of those homes. It is not fair to alarm the residents in the way in which the hon. Gentleman sought to do. The residents of those homes have nothing to fear.
I do not have time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to deal with the other points that were raised, but, as I said earlier, I

A420 (South-West Oxfordshire)

Mr. Robert Jackson: There is a story of a politician campaigning in an African election who pledges the people at a meeting that he will bring them roads and bridges. A call comes from the back of the room, "We have no rivers", to which the politician replies, "I shall bring you rivers also." Thank heavens that nobody can come before the House in the spirit of that African politician. Road construction in Britain, or, at least, the detail of road construction, is not a party-political matter.
It is of course true that the amount of money overall that is allocated for road construction is, in a sense, a political matter, because it involves a choice of priorities. And here the Government's record on that stands up well. In 1985–86 the capital spend on roads increased by 20 per cent. in real terms over the level in 1978–9. And in the coming year, 1986–87, the capital spend will be no less than 30 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979. We should pay tribute to the Government for that fact. The Government have made the right political decisions to allocate resources for road construction on a generous and rising basis.
Nevertheless, the point that I was making about the African politician remains. In this country the procedures for designating priorities for roads and for designing those roads are not political in character. The system is designed to reflect objective factors and to deal as dispassionately as possible with the costs and benefits of different choices.
I say all that to show my hon Friend the Minister that in raising today the future of the A420 in Oxfordshire I am fully conscious of the fact that this is only one among many trunk roads with problems which he has under his responsibility. I want to make that clear from the start. Nevertheless, the A420, as it runs from east to west—or west to east, depending on where one starts—through my constituency from Swindon to Oxford, is a trunk road with problems, as I hope to demonstrate in the course of my remarks. I am glad, on behalf of my constituents, to have this opportunity to draw my hon. Friend's personal attention to these problems.
I invite the House and my hon. Friend to come with me along this road on what the Beatles called a "Magical Mystery Tour". Let us start out from the dreaming spires of Oxford, or at any rate from the dreaming spire of Hartwell's garage at Botley. The first stretch runs from Botley to the Cumnor Hill bypass. That seems to work well, although we notice, as we drive along this stretch of the road, that the traffic is moving fast in both directions Indeed, if the police are not watching, many people exceed the speed limit.
That is what causes the problems which we find when we hit the second stretch of the road, from the end of the Cumnor Hill bypass to the beginning of the dual carriageway at Tubney Wood. Here we will find a problem that comes up again and again along the A420. Having moved extremely fast along the earlier bit of the road, we have to slow down dramatically as we come to the single carriageway. We begin to see a build-up of frustration in the motorists travelling on that road.
The result is that when we come to a short stretch of dual carriageway at Tubney Wood drivers speed up tremendously as they try to break out of the log-jam, and there is a lot of overtaking as people try to get ahead before


the next stretch of single carriageway between Tubney Wood and Kingston Bagpuize where, again, there is more slowing down, more frustration, and more people waiting for the next opportunity to push ahead.
When we reach Kingston Bagpuize we come across our first major problem on the road. There is an urgent need for the bypass at Kingston Bagpuize. It is the only settlement along the A420 that has not yet been bypassed and it faces serious problems. Those problems are well illustrated by the latest figures—the road is being surveyed at present—which show that 16 per cent. of the traffic at Kingston Bagpuize is constituted of heavy goods vehicles above 3 tonnes in weight. That compares with a national average on trunk roads of about 10 per cent. Furthermore, there has been a dramatic growth in all traffic of 15·6 per cent. over the past three years, compared with the national average growth of 9·5 per cent.
I have to say to the Minister about the Kingston Bagpuize bypass that there really must not be any further delay in its construction. I draw the Minister's attention to the petition I sent to him in the summer.
My constituents at Kingston Bagpuize see that the Oxfordshire county council, when it was responsible for the road, completed the Shrivenham and Faringdon bypasses before the road was trunked. They see that since the A420 has been trunked there has been a considerable delay building up in the work on the Kingston Bagpuize bypass. Not unnaturally, they are putting these points together and are reaching conclusions that should make my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department feel uncomfortable. That is why I would like to bring, if I may, a delegation from the community at Kingston Bagpuize to meet my hon. Friend the Minister to discuss the future programme and how we can speed it up. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend will confirm his willingness to do that at a mutually convenient time.
It is not for me to comment on the details of the design of the Kingston Bagpuize bypass. Under our system that is a matter for expert judgment. However, I am concerned about three points. First, there is the line of the road. The petition to which I referred suggests that a substantial majority of the local people want to press ahead with the preferred northern route, although I have to say to my hon. Friend that it was a psychological error in October 1984 not to consult on both routes, the one running south as well as that running north.
A second point concerns access from Longworth. The Minister will have to strike a difficult balance between the interests of Longworth residents gaining access to the A420 and to Southmoor and the interests of residents at the Draycott Wood estate in not having their environment further damaged by the construction of a bridge. I do not envy the task that my hon. Friend and the inspector face in this matter. My hope is that he will seek to minimise the damage to the environment for people on the Draycott Wood estate.
Third, there is the question of the A415 crossing on the A420. It would be deeply unsatisfactory if this were not to be resolved at the same time as the construction of the bypass. We must not allow an essentially bureaucratic factor, which is that the Department of Transport is responsible for the A420 while the Oxfordshire county council is responsible for the A415, to produce what will be a bungle if this issue is not properly addressed. It is my

belief that the Department of Transport must recognise that what it is going to do on the A420 is bound to have an effect on the A415 at that point, and that these limitations must be resolved together.
Let us return to our drive along the A420. We come next to the single carriageway leading from Kingston Baguize to the Faringdon bypass. Here we find a continuation of the problem I described earlier of traffic build-up, blockage and frustration. And this leads us to the next major problem we encounter on our drive—the Faringdon bypass. There is no doubt that that is an accident black spot. There have been nine serious accidents in the past three years, a number of them fatal. Town councillor Donald Barber has conducted a useful house-to-house survey involving quite a large sample. This has shown that 27 per cent. of those polled in Faringdon believe the junction to be unsafe and a further 48 per cent. believe it to be positively dangerous.
The basic cause of the situation is not seriously in doubt. We are getting frustrated drivers building up on the single carriageway stretches. They see something that looks a bit like a dual carriageway at the bypass, and they accelerate to overtake after the bottlenecks—and then they smash into cars that have been pulled into the ghost islands in the centre waiting to turn towards Faringdon.
I believe that the proposal to deal with this problem by improving delineation is not good enough. The Department of Transport will have to accept that there must be a roundabout. I know that that will slow down traffic on the trunk road, but there are roundabouts, for example, on the A34—a trunk road—between Woodstock and Oxford. They have been found to be necessary there, as I believe one to be necessary at Faringdon.
Let us continue along the road: we are near the end of our journey. The next stretch lies between Faringdon and the Shrivenham bypass. Once again, traffic is building up, leading to problems at the Shrivenham bypass that are similar to those at Faringdon, although they are less serious. On this matter, I am grateful to my distinguished constituent, Professor Charlesby, for the work that he has done. The bypass at Shrivenham should have been built as a dual carriageway, and I believe that it will have to be dualled eventually. So we come to the final stretch of the A420 in Oxfordshire, between Shrivenham and the county boundary, where, once again, we have the problem of a single carriageway on an increasingly intensively used road.
Before I draw some general conclusions from this journey through my constituency, I should like to say a word about the problem of service facilities. There is no doubt that we need at least one more service facility on the A420 in Oxfordshire. There are current applications at Faringdom, at Buckland and at Kingston Bagpuize. The latter two are currently the subject of an inquiry, and we are waiting to hear from the inspector.
The only comment that I wish to make, which is a point of general application, is that I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the serious inconveniences—I put it mildly when I use that word—that are caused by the apparent lack of a Department of Transport policy on the provision of services on trunk roads. It cannot be a matter just of highway safety. Other interests have to be taken into account, among them, for example, the optimal spacing between facilities. The Minister's Department must grasp this issue so as to


relieve pressures that my constituents at Buckland have been facing because of an application which is probably unsuitable.
Having taken the House and my hon. Friend on this journey through "leafy Oxfordshire", I should like to leave three main points in his mind. I should like him to recognise the growing pressure on this road. It is one of the principal axes of communication in what is now called the M4 corridor, an area of fast and growing economic development which is important to the national interest. This development is reflected in the traffic figures that I cited: I draw particular attention to the percentage and growth of HGV traffic. We must welcome such an event, but I shudder to think of the consequences for the A420 if and when Honda expands its operations at Swindon, linked to its partner, Austin Rover, at Cowley. The amount of heavy traffic passing between these two facilities is already considerable, and there is every prospect of it growing substantially in future.
The Minister must, I think, accept that the whole road will have to be dualled. I understand that the forecasts of traffic growth over the next 15 years show increases that are well in excess of the criteria currently used for justifying the construction of dual carriageways.
Second, I should like my hon. Friend to recognise that the whole of the A420 requires attention, not just the bits between the bypasses or, for that matter, the bypasses themselves. I very much welcome the news of the decision to review the A420 in Oxfordshire, but I should like my hon. Friend's assurance that no solutions will be precluded by the terms of reference of the review that will be conducted. I am thinking particularly of the necessary improvements of the Faringdon and Shrivenham bypasses.
Finally, I should like my hon. Friend's assurance that, notwithstanding the overall review of the problems of the A420 in my constituency, it will not be allowed to inflict any additional delay on work on the bypass which is necessary to relieve the problems of the unfortunate inhabitants of Kingston Bagpuize. The situation there is had and continues to become worse. Only on Wednesday there was a serious accident outside "Fallowfields", in the same place where someone was killed last year. Reports of such events—and of dangerous near misses which are not reflected in the statistics, but which are real nonetheless—come to me almost every week. The planning routines of my hon. Friend's Department are no doubt very important, but, for God's sake, let those necessary routines not be leisurely—let them be urgent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) has done a service to his constituents by raising issues about the A420 and associated roads. My hon. Friend's contribution reminds me of the importance of having single-Member constituencies. He has taken us on a tour of the A420 and he has also disclosed his age because I suspect that many people would not immediately understand the reference to the Beatles' "Magical Mystery Tour." My hon. Friend has shown such expertise that that is either a full qualification or a total disqualification for taking my job if ever there is an unexpected vacancy. I sometimes wonder, if there

were multi-Member constituencies, whether such issues would be raised in the way in which my hon. Friend has raised them.
At the beginning of his speech my hon. Friend referred to the road building programme. I am sure that he will be pleased to note that last year we spent within 0·5 per cent. of the capital funds allocated. If he and I had had a debate at any time between 1974 and 1979 I would have had to have said that the national roads programme was being cut. We have managed to increase it, as my hon. Friend has said. More than that, we have achieved better value for money, more miles per million pounds, and that has meant more relief, more bypasses and more accident investigation and prevention work, otherwise known as low-cost engineering. That is the kind of approach to dangerous road situations to which my hon. Friend has referred. Sometimes these can be solved by ghost islands, by roundabouts or by grade separation. All the money is used to advantage.
The Department recognises the importance of the A420 as the main route linking Swindon and the M4 with the A34 at Oxford and from there with main routes to the east midlands, M1 and the north.
My hon. Friend has helpfully outlined the background. The A420 was until recently the responsibility of the appropriate local authorities—Wiltshire at the western end and formerly Berkshire and more recently Oxfordshire to the east. In the 1970s the Oxfordshire county council built a bypass and new interchange at Cumnor, with financial help from the taxpayer through the Government.
In 1978 the then Secretary of State announced his intention to improve conditions on the A420 with bypasses for Shrivenham, Faringdon, and Kingston Bagpuize. The Faringdon and Shrivenham bypasses which were opened in 1979 and 1984, respectively, were financed by 100 per cent. grant from the Department in recognitiion of the importance of the route and the benefit of removing traffic from rural towns. We are now preparing a bypass for Kingston Bagpuize and I will return to this in a moment.
The Government subsequently announced that the A420 would be taken into the national trunk road network following the completion of the Shrivenham bypass. The necessary orders to achieve this positive step were made in December 1985.
On a more general point, often, when a road is trunked, that means a change in possible timing because that takes the control of preparation work out of the hands of the county highway authority acting as principal and puts it into the hands of the Government, although often the local highway authority acts as the agent for the Department.
My hon. Friend is understandably concerned about the proposed bypass of Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor which is the only major settlement on the A420 without a bypass. In the autumn of 1984 we consulted the public on a proposed route to the north of the village. Often when we consult on one route people say that we should have consulted on others. On other occasions people claim that it would be faster if we consulted only on one route so that a bypass might be provided without unnecessary delay. I am willing to accept that on occasions we may take the wrong course. I am not sure that we did that on this occasion. However, I understand my hon. Friend's point about consultation with local people on alternatives rather than having to wait for the inquiry process to have the opportunity to put forward alternatives.
After careful consideration of the views expressed by the public, local authorities and interested organisations and after weighing the various factors involved, we announced in May this year that a northern route would be adopted. This route is generally within or very close to the corridor protected for the bypass since 1966, first by Berkshire county council and then by Oxfordshire county council.
We are continuing the necessary preparations for the publication of draft orders under the Highways Act by about the middle of next year. The actual start will, of course, depend on the outcome of the remaining statutory procedures. We also have to allow time for completion of the detailed design, preparation of contract documents and tendering procedures. I cannot give an assurance on timing, but my hon. Friend may like to know that, on the basis of experience elsewhere, I would hope that construction would start within the next three years or so. I know that the scheme is important to my hon. Friend's constituency and more widely, and if we can improve upon that timetable we shall do so.
I know that some of my hon. Friend's constituents would prefer a route to the south of the village. We did not offer this for public consultation as it seemed not to give good value for money, but when the orders are published next year the public will be able to object. If there is a public inquiry, which seems likely, members of the public will be able to put their views to the independent inspector. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about that process. As he said, it is not party political. The procedures for any individual road scheme mean that objections come before an impartial inspector and I think that people have confidence in that system. Our procedures provide for such an inquiry and we regard it as important for people with genuine concerns to be able to state those objections and, if they wish, to propose alternative routes.
Part of Kingston Bagpuize is a conservation area and provision of a trunk road bypass will accord well with our policy of getting traffic out of towns and villages and facilitating the flow of traffic to and from industrial centres to aid economic recovery.
I know that my hon. Friend and his constituents would also like an A415 bypass. As he said, that road is the responsibility of Oxfordshire county council and he knows that I cannot provide trunk roads for it. Nevertheless, it would be surprising if there were not co-ordination, as those concerned know that road travellers are not particularly interested in whether they are travelling on a national road or a county road.
My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the increase in use of the A420. We recognise that it carries a relatively high proportion of heavy goods vehicles and that this may increase slightly as a result of the facilities being constructed by Honda at Swindon. In recognition of the increased traffic, I hope that we shall be able to justify constructing the Kingston Bagpuize bypass as a dual carriageway. I note my hon. Friend's comments about the standard of previous bypasses. It is clear that roads have to be constructed according to the standards applying at the time. It is also clear that if we can keep road spending to what is justified at present, with a reasonable look forward, it will be possible to bring more bypasses into the programme. We have completed 60 or 70 since 1979 and

many more have been added or taken back off the shelf because funds were available. That in itself requires the exercise of some consistency in standards.
My hon. Friend referred to accidents on the A420 and I was sorry to hear of the fatality near Faringdon on 11 December and of other recent accidents and near misses. Like my hon. Friend, I extend my sympathy to the bereaved and the injured. In fact, the overall accident rate is lower than the national rate for this type of road and the Faringdon bypass has halved the accident rate that would otherwise have been expected. Nevertheless, I will ensure that my hon. Friend's observations about individual junctions are properly considered.
We are very conscious of the importance of the trunk road network in Oxfordshire. The A34 is being progressively improved from Oxford southwards to provide a high-standard route to Southampton and Portsmouth. Northwards, good progress is being made with the planning of two schemes—the A43/A421 improvement from Peartree hill to Wendlebury and the M40 extension, which will provide a vastly improved route between Oxford and the midlands. We are also improving the A43 between Wendlebury and the M1.
My hon. Friend asked whether it might be suitable to meet him and representatives of his constituents. I know that he had a meeting with my predecessor, now the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I am sure that it would be possible and, perhaps, helpful to have a meeting. However, I would not wish people to think that by having a meeting they could accelerate the process faster than it can naturally be taken. Nothing would be worse than for us to make an unnecessary mistake in our preparation work. That may be more damaging than trying to take the proposed bypass properly through the procedures.
My hon. Friend asked about service facilities. Plainly, the old tradition of relying on what happens to be at the side of the road may have worked when there were only on-line improvements. Then the hotels, service stations and telephones may have been sufficient, but we have moved on from that. In general our policy is right. The location of such facilities should be determined by market forces so long as they are subject to normal planning procedures and the need to maintain highway safety and the flow of traffic. The acceleration of the road programme in recent years may have left the provision of facilities behind. As we move towards getting facilities on our motorway network, we hope that the private sector and planning authorities will consider what is most appropriate and provide the conveniences that people expect on our trunk roads.
The A420 will provide an important connection to those routes. Indeed, it already does as the exceptional growth of traffic has demonstrated. My hon. Friend quoted figures to show that in recent years traffic has been growing about 50 per cent. faster than in average years.
In case those listening to the debate or those who read it later think that road spending is being concentrated on the south-east, let me say that having an integral road network is advantageous to people all over the country. If people from the south-west, for example, are trying to take goods to the east coast, they will find roads such as the A420 an advantage. Even the completion of the M25 has advantages in terms of employment prospects in Lancashire, the north-east and the north-west because it provides access to the Channel ports. It does not matter


where the improvements take place so long as they help commerce to have reliable deliveries. I am in no sense arguing for traffic to travel faster in terms of miles per hour, but I am arguing for reliable deliveries to make commercial connections which help all areas.
In view of the importance of the A420 as part of our normal ongoing process of reviewing the needs of the trunk road network, we have recently agreed to a wide ranging study to cover the A420 between the county boundary and Botley interchange. It will be undertaken by our agents, the Oxfordshire county council, and will involve the collection of data on accidents, delays, layout standards, traffic volumes and movements. When complete, the study will enable us to decide whether any further improvements are needed on this road, in addition to the bypasses I have already mentioned. We shall also be able to get a good idea of what form those improvements should take.
My hon. Friend will forgive me if I reiterate that safety on the roads depends in part on traffic engineering—road layout, having bypasses, being able partially to exclude traffic, and through roads for through traffic—but in 95 per cent. of accidents a human factor is involved. It may be a misperception or misreading of the road, such as the ghost island problem, to which my hon. Friend referred. But the greatest contributor is drink.
One fatal accident in four involves drink. Each year we could fill the Royal Albert hall with dead bodies from our roads and one seat in four would be occupied by a victim of mixing drinking and driving. The campaign against drink-driving is not just before Christmas. It continues through every month of the year. About 120 people a month die on our roads through the mixture of drinking and driving.
I assure my hon. Friend that in terms of road casualty reduction and trying to increase our economic opportunities, the Department of Transport will continue to do what it can to bring relief, not only in my hon. Friend's constituency, but throughout the country, so that without covering the countryside with concrete or tarmacadam we shall provide the transport mobility that people should be able to expect.

Homelessness (Wandsworth)

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Homelessness is becoming an increasing problem in Tory Britain. At present, there are estimated to be 100,000 homeless families. In London, the problem is more acute. I am especially worried about those homeless people and homeless familites in bed and breakfast accommodation. The estimates are somewhat uncertain, but the generally accepted figure for March of this year was 4,382 people in bed and breakfast accommodation in London. That figure is expected to rise to about 6,000 by March 1987. We all know that those figures are the tip of the iceberg of the homelessness problem in Britain.
In July of this year, a letter was written to The Guardian on behalf of 17 directors of housing in London boroughs, which said that they wished to express
our concern at the rising tide of homelessness sweeping across the city.
The letter continued:
Some councils arc having to use accommodation which is neither safe nor reasonable…The amount of public money being wasted on bed-and-breakfast is scandalous…The Government is well aware of the action necessary. Little is being done, and we are no longer prepared to stand by and say nothing.
In Wandsworth, 185 families are in bed and breakfast accommodation. There are perhaps a further 70 in the next stage of homeless families accommodation; a few may also be in property provided by a housing association; and some are in short-life property. We all know that whether families are accepted into this accommodation depends on whether the local authority says that they are intentionally or unintentionally homeless. Wandsworth council especially has told many families and individuals threatened with homelessness, or who are homeless, that it will do little for them because it says that the families or individuals are intentionally homeless. People cannot fight against that. That is the position if the council defines it as such.
The council sent a letter to me a few weeks ago about a woman with a child who was in bed and breakfast accommodation. The letter said that the woman, who does not want her name mentioned,
has been in our temporary bed and breakfast accommodation since 5th February 1986. She was due to move to Nightingale Square—
which is where the second-stage homeless families move—
on 10th September 1986 but unfortunately it was discovered that she had not in fact been using the bed and breakfast accommodation for a period of several weekends which raised the question of whether in fact she was homeless.
I discussed this matter with the woman and discovered that she had not been in the bed and breakfast accommodation all the time because the cooking facilities were inadequate for herself and for her baby. So, during the day, she went to a friend's house and used the cooking facilities there. It seems that, for that reason, the council questioned whether the women was homeless. The council went on to say in the letter that the woman
was informed that, were she to stay consistently at the hotel for another four weeks, she would be eligible to move into Nightingale Square.
It is almost as though the local authority treats bed and breakfast accommodation as a punishment, and people must serve their time there before they can move to better and more appropriate accommodation. We know that the cost of this accommodation is prohibitively high. It has


been estimated that it costs £14,500 to accommodate a family of four in bed and breakfast accommodation. That is roughly double the cost of keeping the same family in local authority accommodation, if such accommodation was available.
Why is there so much homelessness and why is it increasing? There are two reasons. First, there is a sheer lack of adequate property—houses or flats—to rent. The second reason is the poverty of many homeless people, especially in our inner cities. As for the supply of accommodation to rent, Wandsworth council has acted exactly as the Government wished. In Wandsworth, we see the full effects of Conservative housing policies as wished by central Government and by the Prime Minister's favourite local authority. Since 1979, the Government have said that housing must bear the brunt of public expenditure cuts. In Wandsworth, no new council housing has been started since the Conservatives took control of the council in 1978. I do not complain about the right of council tenants to buy their homes, but Wandsworth council has a policy of designating flats and houses in desirable areas and saying that when they become empty they should be sold. They are not made available to people on the waiting list, the homeless or people in desperate need of accommodation.
Moreover, the council has sold whole blocks and council estates to speculators. Some had to be cleared because of asbestos and were then sold to speculators which, in turn, sell them at prices ranging up to £120,000 for a two-bedroomed flat. Wandsworth council has sold about 1,000 properties to people not on the waiting list and not even living in Wandsworth. That excludes the property sold to speculators, which has often been sold in turn to people from outside Wandsworth.
The result is that the housing pressures are becoming intolerable. Families which have a good case for transfer but which are not necessarily homeless are not being offered alternative accommodation, because there is none, and homeless people are even further down the queue for the chance of getting a decent home.
It might be appropriate to show what the council's priorities are. A family—I have permission to use the name—called Mr. and Mrs. Meredith, who have two children, live in my constituency. Their 18-month-old son is extremely handicapped with cerebral palsy. They desperately need larger accommodation, and they are 65th on the list for transfer. Yet within a few hundred yards of where they live is an empty council property that would be perfectly suitable for them. It has been empty since June this year and it has not even been valued for sale. It is awaiting a purchaser. Is that not disgraceful?
I quote the example of a family of seven—two adults with five children—who live in a two-bedroomed flat. The flat is very damp—I have visited it—and they are desperately overcrowded. But they will be offered nothing in the foreseeable future because they are too far down the list. What chance do homeless people have?
Occasionally, there are glimmers of hope. On 10 December, in the other place, Lord Skelmersdale said:
But for those who cannot afford to buy their homes the range of choice in the rented sector, public and private, is much more restricted. It is this that needs our concentration now.
—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 1986; Vol. 482, c.1180.]

It may need the Government's concentration, but there is precious little sign that the Government are doing anything about it.
In Wandsworth, about 7,700 people are on the waiting list and about 5,700 families are on the transfer list. They and the families who live in bed and breakfast accommodation are too poor to buy the properties that Wandsworth has for sale. On the Government's own figures, quoted earlier this year, mortgage default is increasingly a reason for people becoming homeless. I am not saying that that is the main reason for people becoming homeless in Wandsworth, but it must be an element when 10 per cent. of people become homeless as a result of court orders for mortgage default. Perhaps such people are not all the families who become homeless in Wandsworth. Their poverty may be such that they have never had the chance to buy in the first place.
We should consider for a moment what it is like being in bed and breakfast accommodation, because that is what we are sentencing so many of our people to live in for such a long time. I wish that the Minister, tonight or on any Friday evening I have one, would come to an advice session and listen to the cries of desperation and to people who burst into tears because they are so distressed about their inadequate housing or homelessness, and their unwillingness to have another night with their children in bed and breakfast accommodation. There is a real sense of bitterness, and I wish that the Minister would listen directly to what they have to say.
It is understandable that people should feel so desperate. Often, they are moved into bed and breakfast accommodation outside the borough and are isolated from their families who might give them support. If children are of school age, they have to be moved to another school. We all know how poor are the amenities in these bed and breakfast places. There may be poor or no facilities for washing clothes, which for a mother with a baby can be difficult, and there may be inadequate or no cooking facilities. We know from figures that two thirds of homeless families tend to be single parent families. Only recently, the Minister said:
We recognise, however, that there is a need to get homeless families out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation as quickly as possible, not only because we are concerned at the size of the bill to the public purse…but because such accommodation is generally unsuitable for families with children."—[Official Report, 5 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 1256]
That is the understatement of the year.
I was approached by a woman with a child who found conditions so intolerable that she managed to find friends who would temporarily put her up until the council would move her to the next stage of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. "Not so," said the council when it found out. "You are not in the bed-and-breakfast place, so you are not eligible to move on to the next stage. Take your chance on the transfer list." She would never have got far on that. This is another example of the council treating bed-and-breakfast accommodation as punishment, for which people have to serve time.
I have another of these horror stories of the deprivation that people feel. I can read a letter, although I am not permitted to mention the individual's name. The letter comes from a woman in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, who says:
I am now registered as disabled and I receive Invalidity Benefit amounting to £81·15 per week, I pay £50 for my room


and £5 to a Catalogue firm. I spend the remaining money on food which is limited to most cheap cafes, as cooking facilities are available if you have utensils which I have not. If it was not for close friends and common sense I would not be able to eat 1 or 2 decent meals a week, but I am sure a lot of people in this type of accommodation do not eat regular cooked meals. Most people…live off the breakfast we receive, which is a small bowl of corn flakes, two slices of toast and a cup of tea or coffee and they make do for the rest of the day. The system is an absolute disgrace for people who got into a situation which is often no fault of their own choosing.
We are not all layabouts who just like living off the state." That woman had been the victim of a serious criminal attack some time before. The manager of the hotel wrote a letter in which he said that because of her medical condition, it was impossible to look after her adequately. She has severe asthma. In another letter to me she says:
I have to climb 60 stairs to my room at present and this is extremely difficult due to my Asthma.
She requires constant medical attention during the night for her asthma. Before she moved into the accommodation,
one of my family takes it in turns to stay overnight in case need a Nebulizer. I have my own machine by my bed but I need help to operate it. This is impossible while I am in B &amp; B as they cannot stay overnight.
There are countless examples of people in the same desperate situation. I do not think that the cost argument is the main argument, but whether one argues about the cost or, more importantly, about the human lives involved, that is no way to treat our fellow citizens. I appreciate that Wandsworth council, aided and abetted by the Minister and his Government friends, want the council to have a policy that says that as long as the council looks after most of the people in the borough, who can buy their houses on the open market, it need not worry about those who cannot afford to buy, or who become homeless.
I like to think that Britain may once again become a decent and civilised society. Consequently, I believe that we have a great responsibility for the, say, 20 per cent. of our fellow citizens who are badly housed and for that smaller but important minority who are homeless. We have no right to turn our backs on them, because they face a gloomy and desperate Christmas and a bitter new year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) has chosen to exemplify the problem of homelessness by reference to his borough of Wandsworth. I am glad that he did so, because it gives me a fine opportunity to demonstrate how a sensible housing strategy, coupled with effective housing management, can make a significant contribution to coping in a real way with the problem of homelessness.
The facts of the case speak for themselves. First, the number of homelessness households in Wandsworth, standing at 982, is well below the average for Inner London boroughs at 1,586 and is around the average for London boroughs as a whole, standing at 965. During the financial year 1985–86 the Inner London boroughs accepted an average of 1,586 households as homeless. Acceptance in Wandsworth was 40 per cent. below that level.
Secondly, if we look at the most recently available figures for the numbers of homeless households placed in bed and breakfast accommodation by the London boroughs, we find that on average the figures for the end of September 1986 were 20 per cent. higher than those for

the end of June 1986. However, in Wandsworth there was actually a 16 per cent. reduction in the number of households placed in bed and breakfast by that borough. In Ealing, where the Leader of the Opposition chooses to make his home, the numbers placed in bed and breakfast by that borough increased, by contrast, almost threefold, from 117 to 325.
Some may try to argue that the level of homelessness in Wandsworth is the reverse side of the coin of that council's extremely successful sales policy. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman almost made that point. But hon. Members must be aware that since 1978 Wandsworth has pursued a vigorous policy of council house sales, involving both right to buy, voluntary sales and sales to other than sitting tenants. Over 8,500 dwellings have been sold, 4,300 of them to sitting tenants. Again, the facts speak otherwise. The level of homelessness is significantly higher in those London boroughs whose only sales policy is a rather grudging recognition of the right to buy.
To those who say that Wandsworth's sales policy is in flagrant disregard of the existence of homelessness in the borough, I point out that, in the financial year 1985–86, 47 per cent. of all Wandsworth's new lettings went to homeless families compared, interestingly enough, with only 36 per cent. in Tower Hamlets, 38 per cent. in Southwark and 41 per cent. in Hackney.
Wandsworth's policy is to get those homeless households that are in bed and breakfast hotel accommodation into permanent homes as quickly as possible. Wandsworth is able to do that by securing the rapid re-letting of its housing stock. The number of dwellings awaiting reletting in Wandsworth accounts for less than 1 per cent. of the borough's total stock of 38,000 dwellings, but in Hackney it accounts for 7 per cent. and in Tower Hamlets for 8 per cent. The result is that Wandsworth puts far fewer households into bed and breakfast accommodation than either Hackney or Tower Hamlets and, indeed, far fewer than many other boroughs, including Brent, Camden, Haringey, Newham and the Leader of the Opposition's Ealing.
The efficiency of Wandsworth's housing reletting programme is reflected in the relatively small size of the waiting list for council accommodation. Figures submitted to the Department by local authorities show that, at 1 April 1986, Wandsworth had the smallest housing waiting list of any inner London borough. This would seem to suggest that Wandsworth has been rather more successful in providing housing than have some other local authorities whose approach to the management of their housing stock is less than efficient and who have failed to appreciate that responding to housing needs means more than just providing for those who need to rent but also facilitating home ownership. It is indicative of the position that in the borough of Wandsworth there are nearly three times as many people on the special waiting list for those wishing to buy council dwellings—15,000 to 20,000—a list which gives priority to existing council tenants, as there are on the waiting list for those wishing to rent, of whom there are 6,981.
But Wandsworth's sales are not just the other dimension of a more comprehensive approach to meeting housing needs in the locality. They are also about releasing additional resources to supplement the borough's HIP allocation to assist major capital repairs and improvements to the existing stock and to provide capital for lending to housing associations. In 1985–86, for example,


Wandsworth spent £45 million on its own housing stock, using some £28 million of receipts on top of a basic HIP allocation of £17 million. No other inner London borough has generated such a high ratio of capital receipts to basic allocation. The availability of these additional resources has helped to reduce the need to have dwellings standing empty for long periods awaiting repairs. In some other London boroughs properties have been lying empty awaiting repairs for two years or more. Altogether, there is in London a total of nearly 7,000 council-owned dwellings awaiting repair or improvement.
At the same time, the council, although it does not itself build new dwellings, is an active supporter of housing associations whose new building and renovation programmes form a major plank of its housing strategy. In the financial year 1985–86, Wandsworth spent over £5 million through its lending programme in support of housing association schemes, many of which will accommodate households that might otherwise have been homeless.
The lessons to be learnt from the Wandsworth case are that, by the effective management of housing resources, a local authority can be successful in containing the problem of homelessness. Although the primary responsibility for dealing with the problem of homelessness rests with the local authorities, I should make it clear that the Government do not propose to let local authorities face this problem alone. As I have said on previous occasions—in fact, earlier this morning—the Government fully recognise the problem of homelessness and are taking action on a number of fronts to deal with it.
Let me illustrate this action by briefly listing some of the initiatives that the Government have put in train. First, there has been a £390 million increase in the total resources available for local authorities' capital spending on housing for 1987–88. Secondly, there has been approval in principle of an additional £14 million of housing capital resources for London boroughs in the current financial year through the Department's urban housing renewal unit, now rechristened Estate Action. Of this sum, £8 million has already been allocated to schemes now under way. Essentially, these resources are to support the necessary capital investment to under-pin measures to improve the standards and effectiveness of management. Wandsworth has received £1·6 million from Estate Action in the current financial year as a contribution to a major scheme of works at the 900-unit Doddington estate—an area well known by the hon. Member for Battersea—an investment which will help homeless families by releasing more accommodation to let. The Government are increasing the amount of funding available to Estate Action from £50 million in the current financial year to £75 million in 1987–88.
We are making additional resources available from this year's Estate Action budget to help local authorities with homelessness problems bring back into use in the current financial year empty dwellings on their estates. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing has already given approval in principle to the funding of three schemes in Newham, Greenwich and Islington at a total estimated cost of nearly £700,000. Wandsworth is among the

London boroughs that have been invited to submit a bid for these resources and an initial bid has been received and is now under consideration by my Department.
We are allocating an additional £20 million to the Housing Corporation next year to generate an additional £45 million to £50 million from private sources for priority works aimed at getting homeless families out of bed and breakfast hotels and at providing accommodation for young people moving to cities to take up jobs in areas where there is a shortage of rented housing. As one of the Housing Corporation's priority areas for funding, Wandsworth stands to benefit from a significant share of these resources which we expect to make a major contribution to getting homeless households out of bed and breakfast accommodation. We have increased to £500,000 the amount of grant aid to the voluntary bodies concerned with homelessness to £500,000. Our grant aiding of the Greater London mobility scheme is designed to enable people to be housed as and where accommodation is available.
We have invited local authorities to put forward for consideration on their merits requests to acquire buildings suitable for use as temporary hostel accommodation for homeless families. Although, to date, only a few local authorities have come forward with proposals, consent has already been given to acquisitions which at any one time will afford temporary accommodation to at least 100 homeless people, and we now await further applications.
The desired effect of all these measures is to bring about a significant reduction in the number of homeless households placed in bed and breakfast hotels by local authorities, particularly in London. Such accommodation is generally quite unsuitable for families with children, yet, despite the fact that the Department's code of guidance to local authorities on this matter makes it crystal clear that bed and breakfast accommodation is to be used only in the last resort, London boroughs spent some £26 million on it in 1985–86.
The Government, in discussion with the local authorities, will go on searching for and exploring new ways of approaching the problem of homelessness. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction will be meeting representatives of the local authority associations early in January to discuss a number of matters relating to the problem of homelessness and to follow up some of the issues that emerged at a meeting between Ministers and local authority representatives earlier this year.
The Government are also looking closely at the measures that the local authorities are implementing, including incentive schemes to encourage council tenants to buy in the private sector, thus releasing their former council accommodation for those who most need to rent, and at the short-term leasing of private sector properties.
I should like to conclude by emphasising that there is no single or, indeed, simple solution to the problem of homelessness. Not all the solutions are in the Government's hands—far from it. We shall continue our dialogue with the local authorities with a view to pressing forward on this issue. There is a great deal of scope for local enterprise and initiative and a will to act, such as that demonstrated by the local authorities that are giving incentives to council tenants to buy in the private sector and to the type of enterprise so well demonstrated by the borough of Wandsworth.

Hotel Classification and Registration

Mr. Conal Gregory: It seems appropriate at this festive time that the House should debate a key element of the tourism industry—the difficult and sometimes thorny subject of hotel classification and registration.
I recognise the energy that the Government have devoted to maximising employment and other opportunities in tourism since responsibility for it has moved to the Department of Employment, and the determination of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to remove obstacles to its efficient management.
I declare an interest. In addition to being the elected secretary of the all-party parliamentary tourism committee and vice-chairman of the Conservative parliamentary tourism committee, I am consultant to Consort Hotels, which is Britain's largest consortium of independent hotels. Both locally and nationally, hoteliers contribute substantially to the economy. Indeed, it is Britain's fastest growth industry. It is expanding at a rate of over 50,000 new jobs each year. However, it is primarily the consumer aspect of the hotel industry that I wish to discuss today.
It may be helpful to consider the origin of that building in which are provided lodgings, meals and other services for the travelling public. The derivation from the French hotel or the old French hostel or ostel takes us to the Latin hospitale—a clear reference to an apartment for guests. The hotel has, and continues to take, many forms. It includes properties for travellers who expect superior amenities. That reminds me of Smollett's remarks in 1765:
The expense of living at an hotel is enormous.
The term encompasses simple hotels or boarding houses that supply breakfast known as hotel garni. In a letter in 1858 George Eliot considered this form of hotel to be rather spartan:
He took us to two Hotels Garni—places where you get lodgings and attendance and coffee and nothing else
In 1774 Horace Walpole expressed fear of such a location:
I now live in dread of my biennial gout, and should die of it in an hotel garni
Yet another form is the hotel academia—effectively a "hostel" in a university which is regarded today as part of the important world of the university conference market.
We have a tremendous range of accommodation and related services. The hostelries of the Roman era, sited principally along their roads, took on a commercial revival in the Middle Ages with the development of inns and hostels. Many were operated by religious foundations. Even in 13th century China, Marco Polo found in existence an extensive system of relay houses that provided accommodation for travellers. With the industrial revolution, innkeeping set a standard for the world in cleanliness, comfort and good food. The American innkeepers set a standard for size.
With Thomas Cook's development of travel for pleasure, the expanding hotel trade of the 20th century can look back on a history that has led to a tourist industry that has outgrown national boundaries and become truly international.
Today's consumer has a right to expect accurate and objective information. Such information about the hotel world is a minefield. There is a plethora of choice. The Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club have undertaken hotel classification for many years and their one to five star rating system is well understood. To

a lesser extent, their system of "approving" accommodation other than of hotel status is also understood. However, it is a voluntary rather than a comprehensive scheme, the hotelier can opt to be considered or he may decide not to be included in the publications of the motoring associations. The criteria adopted by the AA and the RAC also differ.
The consumer can consult Michelin, or the Consumers Association's "Good Hotel Guide", the "Ashley Courtenay Recommended" or Egon Ronay. There is no shortage of published material—it is almost bewildering. Then, dependent upon the location, the traveller may encounter regional symbols—the hearts of the Heart of England board and the sea-horses of the Isle of Wight. Just imagine the size of the information board that my hon. Friend may encounter during his Christmas break—assuming permission is granted to the hotelier who wishes to inform the public of his hotel since we still do not have deemed consent—with RAC stars, AA stars, rosettes, crossed forks. The symbolism could be endless.
Mandatory hotel registration and classification is surely the answer. The Government have skirted around the issue for far too long. Yet the United Kingdom already has compulsory registration. Northern Ireland has managed such a system since 1948 and has no procedural problems. As each new hotel is built the relevant inspector is invited in and the information so published gives confidence to the traveller, respect to the Ulster hotel trade and a firm foundation for marketing the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.
In Britain there is a shabby mess. Eugene O'Neill, in "The Iceman Cometh", wrote:
You know how it is, travelling around. The damned hotel rooms.
I wonder how much better informed the visitor will be by the development of yet another symbol—the crown. That was devised by the Scottish Tourist Board and subsequently taken up by the national boards of England and Wales.
The new system consists basically of judging hotels on a one-to-five-crown basis. That will be seen by the public when it is revealed next month as a Government scheme. In essence it is, since the taxpayer is by far the major source of funding for the boards. It is incredible that a new scheme is to be introduced which has no market research foundation, lacks proper consultation with consumer and trade bodies, is inconsistent in its criteria, is late for the 1987 season and will have damaging consequences on our overseas visitor market.
The public will erroneously equate crowns with stars. There is no such equality. The Green Park hotel in Harrogate, with 44 bedrooms, has two stars but four-crown status. The Belvedere hotel in Bournemouth is AA two-star but has four crowns. The Terraces in Stirling has 14 rooms and two stars, but four crowns. The Fern Bank hotel, Shanklin, Isle of Wight, has two stars but four crowns.
Furthermore, some unstarred hotels now have several crowns. Consider the Mapleton hotel in Torquay. It is AA listed but has three crowns. The Kingswood hotel in Sidmouth, again AA listed, has four crowns!
Then there are the five crown properties. The Park Way hotel in Kirkcaldy has 40 rooms and three stars, yet it has that elevated status. The Crown hotel in Carlisle has 52


rooms and three stars, and the New Continental in Plymouth, to go to a different part of the country, has 76 rooms and three stars.
The overseas traveller will expect the facilities of a hotel with five crowns, such as the Inn on the Park, to be mirrored elsewhere. Unless corrected, this is a time-bomb. After problems beyond our control earlier this year when international terrorism knocked the United States visitor market, this ill-conceived scheme is of our own making.
Not surprisingly, many large hotel groups are refusing to put their hotels forward for crown classification. Crest, Rank and Trust House Forte have fundamental objections and Thistle has such strong reservations that it may well withdraw. Therefore, the giants of the hotel trade do not back the scheme.
Since qualitative assessment is so important in selecting a venue, Scotland intends to introduce a three-tier grading to add to its range of crowns—approved, commended and highly commended. The English Tourist Board has said that it will not go down that path—another inconsistency—although it no doubt keeps that option open for the future. Instead, aware that far too many hotels have been awarded five-crown status—over 200 in England alone compared with only 21 five-star hotels in the whole of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—it intends to add gold topping. Like the cream on milk, the board will award a gold crown, no bronze or silver awards—but perhaps those symbols, too, will come later—but five gold crowns which means six different variations. One can recall Trollope's comment:
It is because we put up with bad things that hotel-keepers continue to give them to us.
It is essential that the small operators have just as fair a chance as the large establishments as they are the backbone of the industry. The tourist boards must develop a national scheme where the criteria are uniform throughout the United Kingdom, recognise improvements and are understood by the public. Grading is wanted by the industry and will be of immense benefit when it is introduced as it will give the customer a greater degree of confidence and help to improve standards generally. In spite of that, there is grading only in Scotland with a full-time inspectorate.
Already the regional boards have identified problems—and that is before the scheme is launched. Many consider that a tier needs to be introduced between listed and one crown and that standards at four and five crown level should move towards the four and five star ratings of the motoring organisations. The provision of meals and the introduction of en-suite facilities for two crown upwards will bring the crown classification much more into line with the star system.
I hope that the Department of Employment will ensure better co-ordination between the various Departments of State that have a direct interest in tourism. We were led to believe that that was taking place but at the very first test, registration and classification, it has failed. The answer is to introduce a joint industry-tourist board working committee that will review the situation and report directly to the Government with recommendations on how to implement a national system as originally planned. That would work to unite a system rather than continue the political football game between the tourist boards.
The scheme is now published in all tourist board literature but a delay in the public launch could be beneficial so that problems in the different schemes could be resolved. After such a review it can be announced to the public with a good public relations campaign. It is important that the English Tourist Board, which has by far the vast bulk of the United Kingdom bed stock, is not forced to accept the requirements of the other two national boards. There is not even a commonality of approach. Even the rates charged to the hoteliers differ between the national boards.
The aim should be to inform the public accurately and to effect a general raising of accommodation standards. If that is to be achieved, the unified voice of the industry needs to be harnessed and I hope that the Government's response will be a stimulating one in recognising the damage that can be done, halting it in time and turning their involvement to positive advantage through national criteria which truly help the visitor and assist the development of this great industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) has been ingenious in raising this matter on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions. The issue of classification of hotel and other accommodation is one that has commanded wide attention both inside and outside the industry over the past few years. Therefore, as the Minister with responsibility for tourism in England, I am pleased to have the opportunity of describing the progress that has been made.
Tourism, as my hon. Friend suggested, is one of the most important sectors of the economy in the United Kingdom and is a major source of employment. My hon. Friend and I believe that the potential to increase employment within the sector will gather momentum and we have no doubt that that potential is within the tourist industry.
There are about 1·2 million people currently employed in the industry and the prospects for growth are enormous. The providers of hotel and other forms of accommodation have an essential role to play in ensuring the success of tourism—after all, more people will come here if they have somewhere suitable to stay. There are in England nearly 17,000 hotels and motels and nearly 13,000 bed and breakfast and farmhouse establishments. In addition, England and Wales together have over 4,000 licensed private hotels and guest houses. In Britain the industry employs some 250,000 people and indications are that that number is set to increase significantly, as I have already suggested. It is essential that we provide a product that matches in quantity and in quality what the customer wants and expects. To that end, the tourist boards are laying great store on the need to improve and upgrade the standards of accommodation offered to meet the requirements of today's market.
An essential prerequisite of a successful sale is that the customer shall know in advance what he or she is buying. Hence the Government very much welcome and fully support the initiative by the tourist boards to introduce a standardised classification system throughout the country. A further recent development has been the proposal by the European Commission for standardised information on hotels to be used in official hotel guides throughout the European Community. That measure has been extensively


discussed by HOTREC, the body representing the hotel industry across the whole of Europe and on which the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association is represented. The Commission has proposed a series of self-explanatory symbols, which show the facilities that are available at hotels and which it is hoped can be understood by all. In agreeing those symbols HOTREC has also consulted representatives of the United States and Scandinavian industries. We hope to be able to put that measure to the Industry Council on 22 December, next week, for ratification that will lead to its introduction throughout the Community. That of course is not a classification system, but one that we hope will be a valuable aid to the promotion of tourism within the Community. My hon. Friend will recall, when we had the opportunity to debate that and similar matters only a few weeks ago on the Floor of the House, there was some misunderstanding—not in the mind of my hon. Friend but perhaps in the mind of some of our colleagues—about what the new Community system would do. I hope that we have now cleared up that matter.
As my hon. Friend said, the new crown classification scheme is to be launched by the English Tourist Board to the public in the new year through a media campaign and mail drop to several million households. The objective of the public awareness campaign will be not only to acquaint as many people as possible with the existence of the scheme but to make people familiar with the details of the classification system used. The scheme will apply to hotels and other serviced accommodation. It will be administered in England by the English Tourist Board with the help and support of the non-statutory regional tourist boards. In Scotland and Wales the scheme is being administered by the respective national tourist boards. Each national tourist board has adopted the same criteria for hotel classification, although the scheme in Scotland includes a qualitative grading of establishments, as my hon. Friend said. Although the charging mechanisms may vary among the national tourist boards, in each case the charges are designed only to enable the boards to break even on the costs of running the classification scheme.
The scheme allows each hotel to be placed into one of six categories, ranging from that of "listed" for establishments providing a more basic style accommodation, to five crowns for establishments catering for the top of the market. Under the scheme, managements are required to undertake to follow a specified code of conduct that lays down minimum standards of cleanliness, courtesy and information available to visitors. Establishments are classified according to the range and quality of facilities offered. The previous sytem operated by the English Tourist Board had not shown itself as fulfilling the needs of either the industry or the customer. It was complicated and not easily understood by the user, and it had become apparent that there was a need for something better.
I am sorry to have to say to my hon. Friend that the Government wish to make clear their view that we want a voluntary system of hotel classification. We have always believed, as my hon. Friend knows well, that compulsion and Government regulation would be wrong. My hon. Friend kindly said in his opening remarks that I had tried personally, whenever I could in the Department of Employment, to deregulate to ensure that those who were

enterprising, not just in tourism but in small firms, had the air to breathe and were able to expand and develop. That is the Government's main policy.

Mr. Gregory: I am exceptionally grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I will interrupt only for a moment. In view of his enthusiasm for the open market in that respect, do the Government intend to withdraw, after so many years, the Northern Ireland scheme that has worked so successfully since 1948?

Mr. Trippier: My difficulty, as my hon. Friend will know, is that I am not responsible for Northern Ireland. I appreciate that that is the reply that my hon. Friend might have expected. I made it clear at the outset—as my hon. Friend will recall—that I am the Minister responsible for tourism in England. The less said about that, the better.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend for his earlier remarks about deregulation responsibility within the Department of Employment. That sits uneasily with the stance that my hon. Friend has adopted, which would impose compulsion and increase regulation. Regulation would be more costly to the industry and hence to the consumer. It would certainly be more rigid and bureaucratic and would require significant resources for its operation and administration. It would also be inflexible and unresponsive to changing needs and would have no advantage over a voluntary scheme in encouraging the upgrading of standards.
In an attempt to bring my hon. Friend and myself together on this point, he would be the first to admit that the Government try desperately hard to listen to the voice of industry. That is the major plank of my platform in addressing the debate today. I want to try to convince my hon. Friend that we have listened to the tourism industry. We did not want to introduce a proposal which the industry did not want.
The view that I have expressed is shared by the majority in the tourism industry in this country. I do not say this in an unkind manner because I know of the great enthusiasm that my hon. Friend has for the tourism industry and his particular interest and involvement nor least in his constituency, yet he would be the first to admit and acknowledge that in the debate on the European regulations on 26 November there was no support expressed on the Conservative Benches for a compulsory system—that is, for his proposals.
The current crown classification scheme is the result of lengthy and detailed consultations between the national tourist boards and trade, local authority and consumer interests. Organisations representing the industry as well as individual hotel operators were given the opportunity to make their views known either directly to the English Tourist Board, or at meetings organised by the regional tourist boards. I am confident that adequate opportunity was given to all concerned to contribute to the debate, but of course it was up to the industry to take full advantage of the opportunity offered. Account was also taken of the lessons learnt in operating the old scheme and of suggestions received from members of the public as to how the system could be improved. The scheme is designed to ensure that the customer knows what he or she will be getting when booking accommodation and to help in deciding whether what is being offered represents value for money. It will also provide a yardstick to hoteliers who


wish to improve the facilities offered and an incentive to upgrade the quality of the accommodation stock to meet rising customer expectations. In addition, membership of the scheme will give hotel operators a marketing advantage over their competitors who have not opted for classification. The classification categories are designed to help both British and overseas visitors to select with confidence establishments that meet their needs. I believe that such a system is necessary if this country is to compete successfully in the international tourism market.
Since the announcement of the scheme in October 1985, over 12,000 establishments in England, Scotland and Wales have applied for registration under the scheme. That compares with an estimated 10,000 establishments participating in one or both schemes operated by the motoring organisations. I am aware that initially some parts of the industry expressed concern about aspects of the scheme, but I believe that the degree of positive interest so far shown in the scheme indicates that it is favourably regarded by a broad cross-section of the industry. A breakdown of establishments that have so far registered shows that the scheme is receiving support from all types of hotel. The number of establishments so far registered with the scheme in England falls only just short of the target numbers for the launch date.
As I have already mentioned, the three national tourist boards employ exactly the same criteria in classifying hotels, although the Scottish Tourist Board goes further and also grades establishments according to an assessment of the quality of facilities offered. I am aware that some siren voices south of the border would also welcome qualitative grading. I can see that there may be a case for suggesting that it would be advantageous if exactly the same scheme operated throughout Great Britain, but certain sectors of the industry have expressed strong reservations about grading and these have led to the English Tourist Board's decision to restrict the scheme only to classification of facilities for the present. However, the introduction of grading remains under active consideration—and so it should. The English Tourist Board is of the view that if there are sufficient indications of support from within the industry it will consider introducing qualitative assessment. I understand that the Wales Tourist Board is soon to begin an exercise to seek the views of the industry in Wales on the principle of quality grading.
Other voices have suggested that the public will be confused by the existence of the new crown classification scheme alongside other schemes such as those run by the motoring organisations. The AA and RAC have set up schemes designed to meet the needs of their members, which may not necessarily be the same as the requirements of the population generally. Additionally, they do not

cover the full range of the types of hotel and other accommodation offered. The Government therefore believe that there is a need for a scheme to be set up which has national applicability and which provides a fully objective assessment of the facilities offered. The public awareness campaign to which I have referred should make everyone familiar with the crown system and avoid any confusion which might otherwise arise.
As I have said, it is now just over two years since the English Tourist Board originally began consultations on the form of classification. It has been an illuminating experience for the board and, I suspect, for many within the industry. Progress has not always been easy, but I believe that we now have the basis of a system which meets the needs of both the industry and its customers. At the request of the Government, the English Tourist Board is reviewing the classification scheme to see what lessons there are to be learnt in the light of the experience gained so far. I assure my hon. Friend that full account will be taken of all comments and criticisms in any future amendments made to the scheme and the English Tourist Board will give ample notice of any significant changes proposed to the classification criteria to give interested parties time to make their views known. The view has been expressed by some that the board's willingness to hold a review at this stage suggests a lack of confidence in the scheme, but needs change and we learn by experience. Indeed, since the inception of the scheme, a review was planned during its first year of operation, along with a continuous assessment of performance. In this context, a consumer research project will be carried out during 1987 to establish the public's reaction to and perception of the scheme. Any modifications will have the aim of improving standards and enhancing consumer confidence.
An example of the boards' responsiveness to comment from the industry is the recent decision by the English Tourist Board to introduce an additional superior or five gold crown classification category. This was agreed in response to reservations expressed by the industry that too many hotels were meriting inclusion in the top five crown category—the very point that my hon. Friend made. The five gold crowns will be awarded to those few hotels which offer the highest levels of service and facilities. It is expected that not more than 35 hotels in England will attain that classification, compared with more than 200 which have to date been awarded five crowns.
The country has long needed a national classification system which applies to all serviced accommodation, one which is not aimed at a particular section of the market but satisfies the needs of the whole industry and of all potential customers. The true test of the scheme will only come with experience of its operation and this is not to begin until the new year. We must await the verdict of the user, but I am confident that the scheme will be welcomed by all concerned.

Herstmonceux Castle

2 pm

Mr. Charles Wardle: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this Adjournment debate which comes at the llth hour of parliamentary business for 1986. During the year I have raised the subject of Herstmonceux castle on several occasions, each time in the context of the proposal to move the Royal Greenwich Observatory away from it in 1990. I have done so in questions to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Science and in a speech on tourism on 9 July. However, the opportunity has not previously arisen to express in any detail for the parliamentary record the extent of my anxiety and that of many others about the plans of the Science and Engineering Research Council to remove the observatory and thereby radically to alter the use to which the castle has been put so succcessfully for almost 40 years.
Obviously, there have been other ways in which my parlimanetary colleagues and I have been able to voice our anxieties during the past months. Many meetings have taken place since the SERC made its initial announcement in March about moving the observatory. There has also been a considerable volume of correspondence with my hon. Friend the Paliamentary Under-Secretary of State, other Ministers and representatives of SERC. However, despite all that activity, which brought to light widespread and fundamental reservations about SERC's proposals on the part of many eminent astronomers and scientists, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced that he is not willing to interfere with the judgment that the SERC says is made on scientific grounds.
It should be made absolutely clear that, contrary to some rumours about Rayner initiatives over the castle some years ago, the decision to move the observatory was not Government inspired. In fairness to the Secretary of State, I must say that no Government have ever challenged a decision by the SERC on its scientific merits. Therefore, the observatory is due to move to Cambridge in 1990 and the castle is to be sold.
There is, perhaps, an irony in the choice of year in which the castle is to be vacated. 1990 will also be the 550th anniversary of the year when a licence was granted to crenellate the castle. The anniversary will focus attention on the span of five and a half centuries since the castle's early significance was officially recognosed. Yet under the SERC's proposals its importance is now being overlooked. It is in danger of being seen merely as an asset to be divested by the SERC for a target sum. It is a balance sheet item with a hypothetical valuation to satisfy the Treasury that the cost of rebuilding the observatory in Cambridge can be afforded.
No guidelines have yet been set either by the SERC or, to the best of my knowledge, by my hon. Friend for the most suitable type of buyer to be approached, or for the ways in which the castle should continue to be enjoyed as a public amenity of major historic interest after is has changed hands.
The irony becomes more evident when one bears in mind the fact that the castle has been attracting over 60,000 tourists a year to the observatory and has generated revenue for the SERC. It has created local employment opportunities in tourism—a field of endeavour

specifically highlighted by the Department of Employment as having special growth potential for jobs. Yet, when I asked the chairman of the SERC, Professor Mitchell, about the tourist potential of the observatory while it is maintained at the castle, he said that tourism simply was not part of his brief.
The castle is an outstanding example of early 15th century brickwork in elegantly symmetrical design. In the Sussex volume of their well-known series, "The Buildings of England", Pevsner and Nairn describe it as
a splendid sight
and
the most striking proof of the extent which all-round symmetry had reached in England three generations before the Renaissance.
They say that, despite
its moat, battlements and turrets, it is a mansion rather than a castle.
In the 18th and 19th centuries it fell into decay, but it was brilliantly restored in the early part of this century, first by Colonel Lowther and then by Sir Paul Latham, with the architect, Walter Godfrey. As a result, the Royal Greenwich Observatory, prompted by observational difficulties at its original site in Greenwich, was pleased to move to the castle in 1948.
The Royal Greenwich Observatory occupied the castle, added new buildings on the west side and installed the six telescopes of the equatorial group in a carefully landscaped position on the east side of the castle park. Over a period of nearly 40 years thereafter, the Royal Greenwich Observatory's international status has grown and its contribution at Herstmonceux to advances in ground-based astronomy has been recognised throughout the world.
In recent years, responsibility for the Royal Greenwich Observatory has been transferred from the Admiralty to the SERC. Operational responsibility is now delegated to the council's Astronomy, Space and Radio Board, which supports the range of observational astronomy from radio to gamma-rays, using ground-based facilities and other systems deployed in space. The search for better quality ground-based observations has led to developments of new, larger and technologically more sophisticated telescopes which have been established on mountain top sites at Hawaii and La Palma where they benefit from the greater transparency of the earth's atmosphere.
The Royal Greenwich Observatory has been made responsible for commissioning the three optical telescopes in the Isaac Newton group at La Palma, the third and largest of which, the 4·2 m William Herschel telescope, was completed this year. Its commissioning programme has been scheduled to run until 1990. Inevitably, the shift of emphasis in observational facilities from Herstmonceux to La Palma has led to a changed but nevertheless a continuing vital role at the Royal Greenwich Observatory. Efforts are now concentrated at Herstmonceux on La Palma's behalf on the development of instrumentation, control equipment and related software, new optical and spectroscopic systems, the upkeep of photographic and digital data banks and the important liaison function with universities and astronomical societies in this country and elsewhere.
As a result of that shift in emphasis, the SERC decided to vacate Herstmonceux castle and move to a university site. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the


announcement made by the SERC in March that the Royal Greenwich Observatory would definitely be moved in 1990 caused something of an uproar.
By then it was well known that the report prepared by a working party led by Professor Kingman which the SERC had considered just two months earlier had failed to point to any overriding reasons for moving the Royal Greenwich Observatory. Indeed, the Kingman report concluded that staying at Herstmonceux was a definite and positive option. Therefore, when the SERC appeared to rule out that option in March, with no reason given for its exclusion, the protests began in earnest. In the months that followed, a great many astronomers, ranging from university professors to the well-known television presenter of "The Sky at Night", Mr. Patrick Moore, asked why the Royal Greenwich Observatory needed to be moved, even allowing for the changed role in support of the Isaac Newton group of telescopes at La Palma.
The protesters were joined by worried members of the Royal Greenwich Observatory staff, notably by Dr. Penston and Janet Dudley, by the indefatigable Mary Smith, who presented to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science a petition with 17,000 signatures in support of retention of the observatory at Herstmonceux, by my parliamentary colleagues in East Sussex, by the East Sussex county council, the Weald and District council, and by the Herstmonceux parish council.
Because of the constraints on my time in the debate, I shall simply quote the opinions of three leading astronomers. The first is Professor Rees, who is Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge. On 21 April, he said:
I think much the best solution would be for the RGO to remain at Herstmonceux, on its magnificent site, and to be maintained as an outstanding institution for atronomical research and development, as well as a storehouse for the important archives.
Professor Rees has also made a powerful argument why the Royal Greenwich Observatory would do well to be located in Cambridge if it must be moved. Nevertheless, at the outset, he said that it would be better for the observatory to remain where it is.
Dr. Lynden-Bell, the president of the Royal Astronomical Society, said:
Any policy to dismember, destroy or merge the Royal Greenwich Observatory as an institution will be strongly resisted by a wide body of astronomers.
He said that the way forward is
to build up the scientific side of the RGO at the expense of the engineering and facilities side.
On 2 June, Dr. P. A. Charles, the university lecturer in astronomy at the University of Oxford, wrote to me:
SERC is seen spending an enormous sum of money on a move that nobody has called for and in order to solve problems they can neither specify nor quantify. The long-term effects of this can only be negative.
That is the extent of the evidence that I produce from the astronomical community—from those who thought that the observatory should stay where it is and be developed on site.
The main thrust of the argument against the decision to vacate Herstmonceux came from three directions. The first was criticism about the lack of proper consultation. It must be said that that was because other members of the astronomical community who were interested in what the Kingman report said had no sight of it. The SERC

eventually embarked upon fairly extensive consultation with the staff at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, but only after complaints had been made in March and April about the lack of consultation until that time. But there is no question that the lack of communication in the early stages of the decision-making process caused much unhappiness.
The second area of criticism concerns the inadequate scientific justification for the move. Only the most generalised arguments emerge from the minutes of the SERC's March meeting. If the Royal Greenwich Observatory was to be combined with the royal observatory in Edinburgh, the benefits were no more specific than a
larger operational unit with the increased flexibility, efficiency and opportunity to co-operate
and the
interaction of background activities, e.g. information technology, computing, microelectronics.
Moving to a university site such as Cambridge or Manchester, which was also contemplated, would avail
an infrastructure with strength in astronomy and related disciplines.
At Cambridge, there would be
good engineering, computing and physics departments,
while Manchester offered
one of the best astronomy centres renowned for its radio work at Jodrell Bank,
with
strength in optical astronomy
and
a good background in other relevant disciplines.
No doubt every point was a worthy reference for the other university sites, but it is hardly the overwhelming scientific evidence that one would have expected the Science and Engineering Research Council to have cited in support of a move that would cost—by way of disposal of Herstmonceux castle—more than £3 million.
The third criticism concerned the absence of proper financial justification for the move. It has been suggested that the disposal of Herstmonceux castle looks like asset-stripping, and several questions have been asked about the detailed ongoing financial calculations which seem to suggest that operational savings will be made when the staff move to Cambridge. It must also he borne in mind that by the time for which the move is scheduled—1990—the Royal Greenwich Observatory staff is expected to number no more than 120 or 130. Therefore, I suspect that some of the savings would have been made whether the Royal Greenwich Observatory stays at Herstmonceux castle or whether it goes to Cambridge or elsewhere. Nevertheless, the financial justification has been called in question by a number of my parliamentary colleagues and other people concerned by the move.
There is then the question of other services at Herstmonceux for which the future has not been clearly demarcated. The first concerns the satellite laser ranger, which I shall describe as briefly as possible. It is a system whereby a laser bounces off a large lens and shoots some 5,000 miles in the sky, rebounds off a satellite which it locates in the sky and comes back down to Herstmonceux so that a computer at the satellite laser ranger can identify within an accuracy of 2 in. the spatial relationship between Herstmonceux castle and the satellite 5,000 miles in space. The moment that that satellite ranger is moved, even if it is moved only a mile, all the valuable work and reference


computations will have to be altered, and that will be an enormous waste. The SERC has admitted that it does not yet have the solution to such a move.
Another service of the Royal Greenwich Observatory is the time service, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) has taken an interest, on behalf of the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers. It has made these observations:
The SERC has given as a reason for terminating the Greenwich time service that the money to replace the electric tubes and other equipment is not available. Yet Concerned American Institutions and Companies have offered to replace all the equipment at the cost of £500,000 free of charge.
That is another uncertainty.
I have one general criticism. We should be building up our existing bases of technological and scientific excellence, not allowing a contraction on to fewer sites. Bearing in mind the importance of new technology to this nation's wealth and future jobs, we should adopt an enterprising approach to a site of excellence such as the Royal Greenwich Observatory, rather than seeing it moved to Cambridge where, inevitably, to some extent it will be merged into the university's community.
I do not believe that such a move would have been contemplated if this were in the United States, Germany, Japan or Switzerland. I suspect that one of the reasons is that, worthy as is all the work done by the SERC, it is predominantly led by academics. It has some business men on it, but relatively few. I suspect that if those few business men were to be a little more forceful about adopting an enterprising approach to our sites of technological excellence, the outcome would be different in future when other such cases arise.
I am pleased to say that there is some good news as a result of the SERC's recent concessions. Those stall' at the Royal Greenwich Observatory who are still employed in 1990 will all be offered jobs at Cambridge, and concessions have been made over tourism. The astronomy exhibition centre is to stay open in the park at Herstmonceux and the equatorial group of telescopes will continue working. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Minister that we need to do even more if we are to fulfill the potential of Herstmonceux castle. Discussions have already taken place with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment who has responsibility for tourism, and with the chairman of English Heritage, Lord Montagu.
It is perfectly clear that, if the castle is to be sold, we need to embark on a feasibility study now that gauges what the castle's full tourist potential will be when the Royal Greenwich Observatory moves. Perhaps we should talk to the likes of the owners of Madame Tussauds, the Pearson Group, or to, say, the British Tourist Authority, the English Tourist Board or to anyone with expertise in tourism who can suggest how the castle's future potential may be realised. If we do that, I am sure that the best possible price will be realised for the SERC when the castle is sold, which can be no bad thing, and that after that the interested purchaser will no doubt consider a conference centre, a hotel development, a planetarium or a scientific museum that could be combined with the astronomy exhibition centre so that the tourist potential could be maximised.
I said that I believe that the move of the Royal Greenwich Observatory from Herstmonceux castle is a

matter of regret. However, given the decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I accept that the move in 1990 is inevitable. However, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to make sure that that study of the castle's tourist potential is commissioned so that, after 550 years, the castle can embark on a further exciting and enterprising period.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) on being successful in the ballot and on raising the subject of the future of Herstmonceux castle this afternoon. It is clearly one of importance to his constituency. I should also like to pay tribute to his tireless advocacy on behalf of his constituents, including the staff of the Royal Greenwich Observatory, who will be affected in some way by the observatory's move from Herstmonceux.
We have also received several representations and, one might almost say, earnest entreaties from my hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I believe that what my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said about his researches into the architectural history of Herstmonceux illustrates the depth of his interest in the whole environment. Now that a decision has been taken on the future of the RGO he is understandably focusing the same energy on encouraging the SERC, the local authorities and the tourist boards to explore ways of minimising the impact of the move on the locality.
I have recently met the leader of the East Sussex county council and representatives of other local interests, and I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to those adversely affected directly or indirectly over the decision to move the observatory. Nevertheless, I believe that the SERC has taken the correct decision. I should also point out that there have been a number of other moves and mergers of research council institutes over the past few years, as a response to the changing requirements of scientific research. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle quoted a number of eminent opinions against movement from Herstmonceux, but I do not need to remind him that many of the decisions that the SERC has to take inevitably provoke public discussion and disagreement among academics.
The Royal Greenwich Observatory is a component part of the SERC, whose prime responsibility is to promote the highest quality of British science in United Kingdom universities and polytechnics. The standing of British astronomy is very high, due in no small part to the magnificent facilities that the SERC has provided; the optical telescopes at La Palma in the Canary islands, in collaboration with the Netherlands and Spain; the Anglo-Australian and United Kingdom Schmidt telescopes for observing the southern skies; infra-red and submillimetre wave telescopes in Hawaii, in collaboration with the University of Hawaii and the Netherlands; and experiments on a number of satellites, including the Giotto mission to Halley's comet and the infra-red satellite, IRAS. In 1985–86, the council's Astronomy, Space and Radio Board had a budget of £50 million, which is 17 per cent. of the SERC's total expenditure.
The council has to support research in many other areas of science and engineering, and therefore has a duty to


ensure that its activities in large basic sciences, such as astronomy, are carried out in the most cost effective way. If it does not do so, other areas of science, of more short-term applicability, will suffer. It has therefore examined carefully the support required for its ground-based astronomy facilities in the 1990s and beyond.
The RGO has a glorious past of which we can all be proud, and there is no reason to fear for its future at Cambridge. Indeed, its standing would be likely to decline if it remained as an isolated unit at Herstmonceux. In terms of its 300 or more years of existence, the period in Sussex has been fruitful, but relatively short; it moved there from Greenwich in only 1948 in order to take advantage of the clearer Sussex air. Since then, advances in astronomy have completely transformed the subject, with the exploitation of other types of telescopes, such as the radio-telescopes at Jodrell Bank and Cambridge, and, with the advent of space facilities, telescopes in the X-ray, ultra-violet and infra-red regions of the spectrum.
The council believes that an isolated establishment will not be able to provide the level of support that would be required into the next century without a significant increase in planned staffing levels, and the council is unwilling to reallocate funds to astronomy for this from elsewhere in its activities. On the other hand, the council believes that the RGO could provide the required service if it were closely associated with relevant university departments, and, in particular, a university with an active experimental optical astronomy group and also a wide range of other astronomy interests, and—just as important—departments with expertise in the enabling technologies of micro-electronics, computing and communications, which are required for the development of instrumentation and remote operation facilities at La Palma. In the council's view, the most appropriate environment for the RGO would be associated with the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge, where it could also benefit from the expertise available in, for example, the departments of radioastronomy, engineering and physics.
I stress that the decision was a scientific one, and one that the council believes to be in the best interests of the RGO and the university community that it serves.
A new building is to be provided for the RGO on the university campus, and all of the observatory's activities presently at Herstmonceux can be accommodated there, with the exception of the Equatorial Group of telescopes, which I shall mention later. The observatory will remain a council establishment and retain its integrity and identity.
In order to fund the construction of the new RGO building at Cambridge, the council plans to sell the Herstmonceux estate and has been given the necessary approvals to retain the receipts for this purpose. My hon. Friend rightly addressed the potential of the Herstmonceux estate. I note his remarks on the necessity of a feasibility study.
The SERC is, of course, very much aware of the significant part played by the RGO in the economy of East Sussex and in particular its contribution to tourism in the area. Access to the castle has in the past been limited, but there is no doubt that the grounds and the astronomy exhibition in the Equatorial Group are a major tourism asset to the community. The council understands and is sympathetic to the local concern to remove the uncertainty

over future public access to the grounds and castle. It is therefore making a considerable effort to discuss with the interested local and national bodies ways in which the castle can be retained as a tourist attraction.
I can report that the SERC has had two meetings with the English tourist board, the South East England tourist board, and representatives of the East Sussex county council and the Wealden district council to consider various options. My hon. Friend kindly alluded to those meetings. The possibility of these bodies jointly commissioning a pre-feasibility study to examine these options, as my hon. Friend also mentioned, is being discussed, and I welcome such co-ordinated initiatives. There are a number of possibilities open. These range from bringing in a purchaser to develop the whole site as a tourist attraction—including the castle itself—to finding an owner who would simply allow public access to the footpaths in the grounds.
It is very much hoped that any future sale arrangements will allow the astronomy exhibition and the Equatorial Group of telescopes to remain in the castle grounds where they can form part of an integrated attraction. Nevertheless, if the SERC is not successful in finding a suitable owner who is willing to exploit the exhibition and telescopes, the council is willing to exclude this area from the sale. It has set up a joint working party with the National Maritime museum to consider the practicalities of the museum taking over the day-to-day operation of this part of the site. The museum is already responsible for the Old Greenwich observatory and has expressed an interest in the Equatorial Group. This would provide the possibility of developing public access to these telescopes.
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand from what I have said that the potential of Herstmonceux has not been overlooked by the Government or the SERC. I assure the House that I shall continue to take an interest in this aspect of the move of the Royal Greenwich Observatory, although this does not directly fall within my responsibility.
My hon. Friend mentioned the satellite laser ranger. He is technically astute on these matters, as I know from discussions with him. I again assure him that discussions on the future of the satellite laser ranger are continuing with other sponsors and users of that facility.
I congratulate my hon. Friend again on his highly informed and impressive advocacy on behalf of his constituency.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

That this House takes note of the proposal by the Commission of the European communities for a Council Regulation on the granting of financial support to transport infrastructure projects as set out in the Department of Transport's unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum of 1st December 1986; and welcomes the Government's intention to work for a structured approach to the European Community's future role in transport infrastructure, based on the co-ordination of infrastructure projects in the Member States.—[Mr. Malone.]

ASBESTOS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11216/85 on the prevention of environmental pollution by asbestos; and agrees that the draft Directive, while controlling the emissions of asbestos from manufacturing industry, should not prevent the safe use of asbestos materials.—[Mr. Malone.]

Question agreed to.

Prisons

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Malone.]

Mr. Tom Cox: Events in prisons this year have clearly shown how delicate is the day-to-day atmosphere in our prison system. Just under the surface in every prison lie the tensions and bitternesses of prison life. We hear repeatedly of the ever-increasing number of people in prison. I understand that a Home Office report shows that, early in the 1990s, the prison population could be 55,000 to 60,000. There are already about 48,000 people in our prisons.
Many prisons are old, overcrowded and lack the modern basic facilities to provide reasonable living and working conditions and opportunities. They are degrading and unhygienic for inmates and officers. Vast numbers of people are sent to prison who should never be there. They often need some kind of care, but certainly not prison. We have made little progress in finding alternatives to prison. The Minister should go to any prison to see the people who should not be there—the drug addicts and the mentally ill.
Keeping someone in prison costs an enormous amount. We must start to ask what that achieves. It certainly keeps out of society some people who, I readily accept, should be kept out, but what of the majority who are in and put of prisons most of their lives and face short sentences? What does the system achieve with them? They spend hours on end locked up in cells. On 14 November this year, Wandsworth prison in my constituency locked up 1,548 inmates, and there was work for 720. I suggest that that happens in prison after prison.
It is proposed that prison workshops should be closed. What will happen if they do close? What other activities will be introduced, or is this solely a money-saving exercise? If it is, there will be problems. I readily accept that we spend vast sums of money on prisons, but much of it is wasted. The whizz-kids of the management teams put the information down on paper and, at times, it looks wonderful, but prisons do not work like that. The people who run the system—the governors and the prison officers—may be consulted, but I wonder whether the authorities ever listen to their views, which are based on experience, and whether their ideas are ever put into practice.
I am sure that the Minister will tell me about the prison building programme and obviously that has a role. But. let us look at the existing record. Are prison numbers going down? Are conditions improving? Is life better in prisons? Are officers or governors happier? Does the system work better? There is no indication of that whatsoever.
There have been a number of prison disturbances this year and it would be interesting to know what kind of survey the Home Office intends to carry out into that problem. It is a fact that conditions in prisons are worse today than they were 20 years ago. We have more life sentence prisoners, more terrorist prisoners and more violent offenders in prison than ever before. There is more violence occurring in prisons between prisoners, more violence against staff and less recreation in prisons.
More prisoners spend more time locked up in their cells than ever before. The drug problem in prisons increases. Time and time again the Home Office has been told of


those problems, but where is the evidence that it has done anything about it? If the Minister doubts what I say he should read the annual reports of prison hoards of visitors. Take any six reports from anywhere in this country and discover what is said by many men and women not connected with the prison service or the Home Office. In their reports, they spell out the complaints, the despair and the "do the best you can" attitude that is so often adopted. Where is the long term programme? Where is the vision of prison reform that will show how the system will be working in this country in the year 2000? I see nothing that gives me any hope.
I should like to discuss the Home Office policy statement "A Fresh Start". Prison officers all over the country have rejected it. From time to time I am sure that the Minister must read the Prison Officers Association journal, "Gatelodge". I hope that he has read the October edition because I would like to quote three or four brief summaries of local branch reports that commented on "A Fresh Start."
The monthly report from Buckley Hall stated:
By now I am sure everyone will have seen the latest propaganda from the Prison Department. We have all read, I'm sure, the booklet, "A Fresh Start"…Without being too unkind, at the time of writing, they haven't even sorted out this year's problems, never mind inventing new ones… it contains one of the most retrogressive ideas yet put to this Association. For 'contracted hours' read 'compulsory overtime'. No matter how you read it, that's what they are talking about.
Let us consider what the report from Frankland, a major prison, said about the statement:
Let us all hope that we arc not dragged back to the Dickensian days and that our representatives remember that we are working in conditions that warrant a reduction in working hours and as such the last thing we deserve is to be committed to an increase in conditioned hours. The proposed 'New Start' has all the signs of a Department Confidence Trick.
Lowdham Grange's report stated:
We have, since I last wrote a branch news item for the magazine, been confronted with a document known as 'A Fresh Start'. I don't wish to say much on this matter as I'm sure we will hear plenty in the next few months. It suffices to say that the booklet now hangs on a piece of string for use in the staff toilet".
It is sad that that is the officers' attitude to this particular document. The final quote I shall use comes from the report from Shrewsbury prison which states.:
the Department has issued us all with a pamphlet entitled 'A Fresh Start,' hooray, at last, things are moving—but where? Goodness knows! There has never been a less inspiring, more empty set of proposals put to Prison Officers in the history of the Prison Service. We certainly need a fresh start or rather should we say we need some fresh starters at the top, people competent to run an organisation the size of this Service.
Those are the views of long-serving officers in our prison system about the Home Office document, "A Fresh Start". There is bitterness and a feeling of being let down. Many prison officers have little confidence for their future. At this moment the fresh start scheme has little chance of being accepted by prison officers. The Minister can think or say what he likes, but it has little chance of being accepted. I beg him not to try to force an agreement on the Prison Officers Association. It would be far better for him and the Home Secretary to invite a group of officers from prisons around Britain to their Department to hear what

they are saying. With their support there is a chance, if their views are heard and listened to, of achievements being made.
I could quote many examples, but I shall quote just two. A letter sent to the Home Secretary by the Brixton Prison Officers Association in October this year says:
Dear Mr. Hurd, I have been instructed by the Branch Committee to inform you of the very grave concern of the staff shortage here at Brixton. The Governor and C.O. have done all within their power to help, but there is a lot more that can be done by the 'Higher Ups"'
The branch secretary of Wandsworth prison in my constituency is a man called Steve Spratling. I know him and he has been in the prison service for many years. He is a dedicated officer. In Prison Service News in October this year, he said:
As everyone is aware, the Prison Service is suffering drastically from the effects of financial restraints. This in turn has brought to a head differences in relation to negotiating rights for safe manning levels.
Prison officers cost too much! That is what the Home Office Prison Department would have everyone believe. But what of the real cost? The real cost is met by prison officers, their wives and families.
We work sometimes long hours, exhausting our reserves of tolerance dealing with some of the most difficult elements society can throw at us. We are subjected to verbal and more often physical attacks by simply doing our job. At the end of the day, there is little or nothing left when we return home exhausted and tired, and often nothing left to offer as a husband and father. Our wives and families suffer too.
That comes from the branch secretary of Wandsworth prison in my constituency—a man who has been in the service for a long time. In that letter he conveys the feeling of himself and his fellow officers. They are the views of prison officers and they are ably supported by David Evans, the general secretary of the Prison Officers Association, and the executive committee.
In this Adjournment debate I have not sought to make this a political issue. I speak of what I know and of what I am told. Recently, during a visit that I made to Wormwood Scrubs prison, bulletin 4 of "A Fresh Start" was being given out to officers. Their view, in the general discussion that I had with them for a couple of hours or so, was that they could in no way accept it. I could give many examples of what they bitterly complain about, but I shall give just two.
The prison service needs a proper salary structure without the conditions that would be imposed by the fresh start scheme. Such propaganda from the Home Office is in no way conducive to building up support among prison officers and their association. There is no way in which all officers will get the much talked of £15,000 a year, as is mentioned in "A Fresh Start."
The Home Office also has to face up to the fact that there has to be a major increase in staffing in our prisons. In Wandsworth prison earlier this year a young officer was brutally attacked. That attack, sadly, took place because of totally inadequate staffing for the job he was doing. It was taken up by me and the local POA with the Home Secretary. In no way were prison officers happy with the response they received from the Home Secretary to that very serious attack against a young officer.
I have said that our prisons are in crisis, and all the evidence shows that they are. The men and women who run them know that and it is time that those people were listened to and that the Home Office started to work with them. If that happens, a solution is possible. Try to force something on them and there will be no support. There will


be increasing bitterness and mass resignations from the service. That is the choice that the Minister and the Home Office face. Let us hope that they understand it because prisons are going to be in our society for a long time to come and it will be dedicated men and women officers who will run them. I suggest to the House that it is time we started to hear what they say to us and took note of it.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for providing me with the opportunity to set out today how the Government see the future of our prisons and the conditions for those who live and work in them. I know of the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in prison issues, and the personal contribution he has made as a member of the board of visitors at Wormwood Scrubs.
Of course, conditions in many of our prisons leave much to be desired. We have never had to have that fact beaten out of us; we have always made it clear. The chronic problems of overcrowding, inadequate facilities and restrictive regimes are not of recent provenance. Indeed, we inherited a prison estate from the previous Government in an entirely shocking state. This is the first Government in living memory who have tried to put resources into the prisons to make improvements that might, with advantage, have been made many years ago. I know that the hon. Gentleman, wanting to be fair in making sure that this is not a political issue, will accept that and the fact that some real improvements are being made.
My real criticism of what the hon. Gentleman has said is that for someone with his wide experience of prisons he has taken a rather narrow POA-orientated view, when there are other views and many counter-arguments to suggest that the lot of the prison officer is a great deal better than it was and a great deal better than is suggested by one or two of the quotations that he read out.
Even if one concedes, as we do, the difficulties faced in many prisons, we also have to face the fact that many of the problems do not apply in all establishments. Many training prisons and youth custody centres are lttle affected by overcrowding and provide good conditions and positive regimes for prisoners and staff alike.
The hon. Gentleman knows Wandsworth prison in his constituency very well. I know it too—less well than the hon. Gentleman—as I am a Member from the same borough. Of course, conditions in a number of similar prisons of Victorian origin are not good. There are a number of reasons for the problems that I have outlined, not least of which is the lack of investment by successive Governments in the prison estate. It is a shocking fact that no new prisons were built in England and Wales between 1918 and 1958 and the resources devoted to repair and maintenance were totally inadequate until this Government took office.
Another major problem is the rise in the prison population. That has obviously contributed to the problems of the system. Last year's major surge in the population to 48,200 in the summer placed heavy demands on the capacity of the system to cope. After falling steadily to about 45,000 by the beginning of 1986, the population has increased gradually again this year and, sadly, reached a peak of over 48,300 last Friday. This year's increase is attributable mainly to a rise in the remand population, together with an increase in long-term adult male offenders.
I must also point out to the hon. Gentleman that the percentage of the prison population sharing cells doubled from 18 per cent. to 35·8 per cent. in the five years of the Labour Government 1965–70. Since then it has remained pretty steady. That is because of the work that has been done by the Government in building more prisons and refurbishing existing establishments. Despite the 8 per cent. rise in the prison population between 1980 and 1985, we have been able to keep constant the percentage of those sharing cells. Had we pursued the policy of the Labour Government and not invested in the prisons—indeed, made cuts in prison building—today's situation would be far worse.
I say that to the hon. Gentleman in response to some of the criticisms that have been made, which tend to suggest that the problems that we face are all of the Government's making, and matters to which we have been wilfully blind. Far from it. Building new prisons and refurbishing old prisons is not something that one can do with the wave of a magic wand. It is a long and extended process. When one adds to that the enormous pressure through the increased number of prisoners coming from the courts either on remand or as sentenced prisoners, the situation becomes one of the most difficult management problems that any Government Department has been called upon to face.
I appreciate that the POA members to whom the hon. Gentleman speaks have a vested interest in preserving present working practices, but we cannot apply resources to the prison system without asking serious questions about the efficiency of management systems and the applicability of working practices to a modern prison system. We have arrived candidly at the view that some of those practices have hindered progress for a long time, so something has to be done about them.
That is why the fresh start proposals have been introduced. It was interesting that when we had a debate in the early hours of the morning at which, by happy chance, you were also present, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), speaking from the Labour Front Bench, said that there was a great deal that he welcomed in fresh start. I prefer his view of fresh start to that which has been fed to the hon. Gentleman by some of his contacts in the system.
What are we trying to do? I cannot go into it all in great detail, but there are three main strands to what we are about. The first is to reduce the demands on the prison system. The second is to increase and update its capacity to cope with those demands. The third is to make better use of the resources, of both staff and money, which are devoted to the service.
I refer first to reducing the prison population. Many people think that the prison problem could be dealt with exclusively by reducing the number of people held in prison, but that view is unrealistic. The prison system has to respond to the demands placed on it by the courts. The public expect to be protected from serious offenders and further expect that they will be properly punished. That is why Parliament has given the courts the sentencing powers that it has. However, we have to do all that we can to ensure that a custodial sentence is seen by the courts as a last resort. In England and Wales, we have a wide range of non-custodial disposals for offenders of all ages. It is worth pointing out that we have increased expenditure on the probation service by 38 per cent. in real terms over the past


six years and strengthened the probation order and many of the other bedrock parts of the non-custodial sentence system to make them more attractive to the courts.
Secondly, the Government have embarked on the largest programme of prison building and refurbishment since the Victorian era. I said that there were 40 years in this century when not a single new prison was built. By contrast, three new establishments opened last year alone. Another five are currently being built and another 12 are at various stages of design or planning. Together, those new establishments, including the three already opened, will provide some additional 10,600 places by the mid-1990s. In addition, there is a programme of expansion at existing establishments to provide some 6,600 further new places, making 17,200 in all. A further vital element of the building programme is the modernisation and redevelopment of the existing estate.
For a Government so often unreasonably traduced for cutting budgets, major capital work is in progress or planned at about 100 establishments, including nearly all of the Victorian local prisons and Wormwood Scrubs, which the hon. Gentleman knows so well. Approval has been given to fund the first phase of redevelopment work scheduled to begin in April 1987 at a cost of £4·78 million. Planned expenditure on the building programme in total for 1986–87 is £53 million on new prisons and £65 million on building and repair work in existing prisons.
This work is being carried out to improve access to sanitation in the older cellular establishments, and that is a priority. Of course, progress depends on the provision of new places to ease overcrowding because, in order to make the improvements, existing accommodation has to be taken out of use. In the short term, the ameliorating efforts can add to the problems of the prison estate coping with the numbers arriving from the courts.
To give the House an idea of how we are trying to improve conditions, I can state that by the end of 1990 some 28,000 prison places will have access to sanitation. By the end of the century, under the plans, 37,800, or 70 per cent., of all certified places will have that access.
The hon. Gentleman spoke on behalf of prison officers and I make no criticism of him for that. I would like to tell him a little about the resources devoted to the prison service. Between 1978–79 and 1985–86 the number of prison officers has risen by nearly 18 per cent. while the average inmate population rose by about 12 per cent. There are more staff resources proportionately than when the Labour Government were in office. Over the same period, expenditure on the service rose by 36 per cent. in real terms. That compares with an increase of only 12 per cent. under the previous Administration. The Government's public expenditure White Paper last January showed our intention to continue to give prisons priority in relation to other Home Office spending.
The third element in these matters relates to improved efficiency. We have spent the money as a tangible expression of our support for the prison service. We have reversed the previous neglect of our penal system that was a crying shame to so many of our predecessors. However, the increased resources carry with them the responsibility to ensure that they are used in such a way as to secure the best value for money. Unless we do that, we will not be able to achieve the improvements that we all want. That

is why the work that is being carried out in the service to improve management systems is an integral part of our programme for improving the prison service.
The prison service is well on the way to achieving better management accountability and clearer targets for each establishment under arrangements first introduced in 1984. These involve the drawing up of a contract between the region director and the governor setting performance standards and targets for improvement for each establishment. In that way, each governor must account for his establishment's performance. Similarly, recent developments in financial accountability are a vital element in making the best use of existing resources. From 1 April this year, the first stage of a new local budgeting scheme was introduced.
The most recent and perhaps the most significant development is the package of proposals to which the hon. Gentleman referred somewhat tendentiously, the proposal known as "A Fresh Start", which is now under discussion with the prison service trade unions and that is undoubtedly why the hon. Gentleman raised the matter.
It is one of the paradoxes of the service that, at the same time as the Government have invested the substantial additional resources to which I have referred, the quality of regimes in some establishments seems to have suffered. A large part of the explanation for this lies in the rigid systems of working and complementing that currently operate in establishments. I do not have time to go into all these proposals in detail today. I did so in the debate that we had in the early hours of the morning a few days ago. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I refer him to what I said on that occasion.
The aim of the revised arrangements is to provide prison management with flexible systems to enable governors to make better use of the staff that they have and so to pursue improvements in regime standards for prisoners. The key feature of the system of management accountability that has been introduced is that governors are required to manage their resources so that prisoners are occupied as fully as possible throughout the week and spend the maximum time out of cell. I entirely agree with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman about the need for that. Of course, there are many constraints on achieving that objective but it rightly focuses the attention of all concerned on the quality of prison life.
We take regime developments seriously. The initiatives currently in hand include an exercise to pool ideas between regions on positive steps that might be taken to advance work in that area. The aim will be to reach agreement on a programme of action throughout the country. In addition, much valuable work is being carried out in establishments which involves inmates in one way or another in working positively for the community.
Time is running out. I end by saying once again that I am glad to have had this opportunity to set out the Government's policy in this important area.

Mr. Speaker: Before I adjourn the House, may I wish the Members and staff of the House a restful holiday and a very happy Christmas and a new year of good order.
The House now stands adjourned until Monday 12 January.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock, pursuant to the resolution of the House of 15 December.